Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

State Of Rajasthan Through The ... vs Raghunandan Purohit ... on 12 March, 2025

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

[2025:RJ-JD:15120-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                   D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 63/2022

1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
         Medical And Health Services (Group-Iii), Government Of
         Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.       The Director, Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan,
         Tilak Marg, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur.
3.       The Additional Director (Administration), Medical And
         Health    Services,         Rajasthan,         Tilak       Marg,   Swasthya
         Bhawan, Jaipur.
                                                                       ----Appellants
                                       Versus
Savita Manmiya D/o Shri Lal Chand Manmiya, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Kailash Nagar 2 D-72, Jk Cement Works, Nimbahera,
District Chittorgarh
                                                                      ----Respondent
                                 Connected With
                   D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 211/2022
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
         Medical And Health Services, (Group Iii) Government Of
         Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.       The Director Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan,
         Tilak Marg Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur
3.       The Additional Director (Administration) Now Director
         (Non Gazetted), Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan,
         Tilak Marg, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur
                                                                       ----Appellants
                                       Versus
Kalpana Kumari Menariya D/o Shri Heera Lal, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Near Old Small Water Tank House No 189 Ward No. 2,
Chaderiya, Distt. Chittorgarh (Raj.)
                                                                      ----Respondent
                   D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 523/2022
1.       State Of Rajasthan Through The Principal Seceatary,
         Medical And Health Services Group (Iii), Government Of
         Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2.       The Director, Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan Tilak

                        (Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 09:21:04 AM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:15120-DB]                  (2 of 15)                         [SAW-63/2022]


         Marg, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur.
3.       The Additional Director (Administration), Medical And
         Health Services, Rajasthan Tilak Marg, Swasthya Bhawan,
         Jaipur.
                                                                      ----Appellants
                                       Versus
1.       Raghunandan Purohit S/o Vishnu Dutt Purohit, Aged
         About 29 Years, R/o Ward No. 15, Brampuri Mohalla,
         Bassi, Chittaurgarh, Rajasthan 312022
2.       Piyush Sukhwal S/o Shri Jamna Sukhwal, Aged About 29
         Years, 21 Potla , Potlan Kalan, Chittorgarh, Potlanjagir,
         Raj. 312602
3.       Abhishek Dhaker S/o Shri Banshi Lal Dhakar, Aged About
         28 Years, R/o Kalyanpura, Chittorgarh, Raj. 312022
4.       Cheena Sardiwal D/o Harish Chand Sardiwal, Aged About
         27 Years, R/o Gaurav Path, Mazdoor Colony, Bijay Nagar,
         Ajmer Raj.
5.       Bhop Raj Jat S/o Shri Narayan Lal, Aged About 29 Years,
         R/o Gopi Kheda, Bhadesar , Chittorgarh , Bhadesar Raj
         312602
6.       Om Prakash Jaiswal S/o Shri Amrit Lal Jaiswal, Aged
         About 33 Years, R/o Aramchin Bapu Nagar Sentgu,
         Chittorgarh Raj. 312001
7.       Gaytri Devi W/o Shri Atul Kumar Garg, Aged About 25
         Years, R/o Joonda , Rajsamand Raj 313328
8.       Bablu Kanwar Chouhan D/o Shri Ram Singh Chouhan,
         Aged About 29 Years, R/o H.n. 2A4, Segwa Housing
         Board, Senthi, Village Seerdi , Distt. Chittorgarh, Raj.
         312001
9.       Pappu Lal Dhakar S/o Komal Chand, Aged About 28
         Years, R/o Laxmi Narayan Bhagwan Mohalla, Bangrera,
         Chittorgarh, Raj 312601
                                                                    ----Respondents
                   D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 554/2022
1.       State Of Rajasthan Through The Principal Secretary,
         Medical And Services Group Iii Government Of Rajasthan
         Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.       The Director, Medical And Services Rajasthan Tilak Marg

                        (Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 09:21:04 AM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:15120-DB]                  (3 of 15)                            [SAW-63/2022]


         Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur
3.       The Additional Director Administration Now Director Non
         Gazetted, Medical And Services Rajasthan Tilak Marg
         Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur
                                                                      ----Appellants
                                       Versus
Upama Pareek D/o Shri Rameshwar Lal Pareek, Aged About 32
Years, 7 A 9 Bapu Nagar District Bhilwara
                                                                     ----Respondent
                    D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 721/2022
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
         Medical And Health Services (Group Iii), Government Of
         Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2.       The Director, Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan ,
         Tilak Marg, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur.
3.       The Additional Director (Administration), Medical And
         Health     Services,      Rajasthan         ,   Tilak      Marg,    Swasthya
         Bhawan, Jaipur.
4.       Priyanka Joshi D/o Anil Joshi, Nurse Grade Ii, C/o Medical
         Officer, Community Health Centre, Katunda, Tehsil Bagu,
         Dist. Chittorgarh (Raj.).
                                                                      ----Appellants
                                       Versus
Uma Shree Bharati Shringi D/o Jagdish Chandra Sharma, Aged
About 27 Years, Shri Babulal Sukhwal ,50, Krishna Vatika, 3Rd,
Maduvan , Senthi, Chittorgarh (Rajasthan).
                                                                     ----Respondent
                  D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7474/2022
Naresh Bhati S/o Shri Tipu Ram Bhati, Aged About 30 Years, Vpo
Near Ganesh Ji Mandir, Nokha Chadawata, Via Gotan, Tehsil
Merta, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
                                                                       ----Appellant
                                       Versus
1.       All India Institute Of Medical Sciences Jodhpur, Through
         Director, Basni Industrial Area, Mia 2Nd Phase, Basni,
         Jodhpur.
2.       Administrative Officer (Exam), Examination Section, All

                        (Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 09:21:04 AM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:15120-DB]                   (4 of 15)                        [SAW-63/2022]


         India   Institute        Of    Medical      Sciences       Jodhpur,   Basni
         Industrial Area, Mia 2Nd Phase, Basni, Jodhpur.
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)              :    Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG.
                                   Mr. Binja Ram Jajra.
For Respondent(s)             :    Mr. Vivek Firoda with
                                   Mr. Jayram Saran.
                                   Ms. Nidhi Singhvi



     HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI

Judgment

12/03/2025

1. Since the controversy involved in all the instant special

appeals is identical, therefore, the same have been heard together

and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. These special appeals have been preferred claiming the

following reliefs:

Appeal No. 63/2022 (By State):

"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Special Appeal may kindly be allowed. The order impugned dated 16.02.2021 passed by Hon'ble Single Judge allowing the writ petition being SBCWP No.2835/2020 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondent-petitioner may kindly be dismissed.

Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the appellants."

Appeal No.211/2022 (By State):

"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Special Appeal may kindly be allowed. The order impugned dated 25.03.2021 passed by Hon'ble Single Judge allowing the writ petition being SBCWP No.3871/2021 may kindly be

[2025:RJ-JD:15120-DB] (5 of 15) [SAW-63/2022]

quashed and set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondent-petitioner may kindly be dismissed.

Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the appellants."

Appeal No.523/2022 (By State):

"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Special Appeal may kindly be allowed. The order impugned dated 09.03.2021 passed by Hon'ble Single Judge allowing the writ petition being SBCWP No.9189/2018 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondent-petitioner may kindly be dismissed.

Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the appellants."

Appeal No.554/2022 (By State):

"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Special Appeal may kindly be allowed. The order impugned dated 25.03.2021 passed by Hon'ble Single Judge allowing the writ petition being SBCWP No.3824/2021 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondent-petitioner may kindly be dismissed.

Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the appellants."

Appeal No.721/2022 (By State):

"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Special Appeal may kindly be allowed. The order impugned dated 25.03.2021 passed by Hon'ble Single Judge allowing the writ petition being SBCWP No.5024/2021 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondent-petitioner may kindly be dismissed.

[2025:RJ-JD:15120-DB] (6 of 15) [SAW-63/2022]

Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the appellants."

Appeal No.7474/2022 (By applicant in OA):

"It is therefore, very humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to :-

(i) allow the present writ petition;

(ii) Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 08.04.2022 (Ann-2) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal at Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in Original Application No.290/00062/2022.

(iii) Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 8.3.2022 (Ann-A/1) of the Original Application passed by non-applicants.

(iv) Direct the respondents to consider the experience certificate of petitioner and consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Senior Nursing Officer (Staff Nurse Grade-I) in pursuant to the advertisement (Annex- A/2) of the Original Application and appointment order be passed in favor of petitioner;

(v) Quash and set aside any adverse order passed against the petitioner in pursuant to the rejection of petitioner's candidature, if any;

(vi) grant such relief/reliefs which in the facts and circumstances of this case may do complete justice to the petitioner; and

(vii) award cost of this Writ Petition."

2.1. As the record would reveal, in all the instant appeals, except

Appeal No.7474/2002, the appellant is the State (respondent in

the writ petitions). In Appeal No.7474/2022, the appellant

(original applicant) is aggrieved of the order passed by the learned

Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur (for

short, 'Tribunal'), whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the

[2025:RJ-JD:15120-DB] (7 of 15) [SAW-63/2022]

original application, challenging the order dated 08.03.2022

whereby the candidature of the appellant (original application)

was rejected on the ground of his experience certificate being not

as per the requirement for the post of Senior Nursing Officer (Staff

Nurse Grade-I).

3. The present controversy, in sum and substance, arises out of

the recruitment process for appointment on the post of Nurse

Grade II/GNM initiated vide advertisement dated 30.05.2018.

4. The whole contention in the present case is that the writ

petitioners claimed grant of bonus marks, in the recruitment

process in question, on the basis of the experience gained while

working as Nursing Tutor.

5. At the outset, Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, learned Additional

Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellant-State has

drawn the attention of this Court towards the operative portion of

the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge dated

16.02.2021 passed in one of the writ petitions i.e. S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.2835/2020 (instant Appeal No.63/2022), which reads

as under:

"17. Right of claiming bonus marks emanates from Rule 19 of the Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 (hereafter, "Rules of 1965"). Clause No.7 of the advertisement, is somewhat reproduction of Rule 19, which reads as under :-

"7- vuqHko ds vk/kkj ij cksul vad %& jktLFkku fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; v/khuLFk lsok fu;e 1965 ;Fkk la"kksf/kr fu;eksa ds fu;e 19 esa mYysf[kr izko/kkuksa ds rgr~ vH;fFkZ;ksa dks cksul vad ns; gSA

(i) vH;fFkZ;ksa dh ik=rk dh tkWp ,oa nLrkostksa ds lR;kiu ds le;

vkosnd dks eq[;ea=h chih,y thou j{kkdks'k] ,uvkj,p,e esfMds;j fjyhQ lkslk;Vh] ,M~l dUVªksy lkslk;Vh] jk'Vªh; {k; fu;a=.k dk;ZØe] >kykokM+ vLirky ,oa fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; lkslk;Vh] lesfdr jksx fuxjkuh ifj;kstuk] jkT; LokLF; ifjokj dY;k.k laLFkku (SIHFW) ,oa jkT; ljdkj ds v/khu leku dk;Z djus dk foHkkx ds vf/kd`r izkf/kdkjh }kjk * fu/kkZfjr izk:i esa

[2025:RJ-JD:15120-DB] (8 of 15) [SAW-63/2022]

tkjh vuqHko izek.k i= izLrqr djuk gksxkA ;g vuqHko izek.k i= foKkfir in ds fy;s vkWuykbZu vkosnu djus dh vafre frfFk ls iwoZ dk tkjh fd;k gqvk gksuk vko";d gSA vuqHko vof/k dh x.kuk foKfIr tkjh gksus dh frfFk rd dh tkosxhA vuqHko izek.k i= dk izk:i ^v* layXu gSA foHkkx }kjk fu/kkZfjr izk:i ds vfrfjDr vU; fdlh izk:i esa tkjh fd;k x;k vuqHko izek.k i= ekU; ugha gksxkA *(emphasis supplied)

(ii) jktLFkku ljdkj ds v/khu iz/kkukpk;Z ,oa fu;a=d jktdh; esfMdy dkWyst] iz/kkukpk;Z >kykokM+ gkWfLiVy ,.M esfMdy dkWyst lkslk;Vh] jktdh; MsUVy dkWyst] funs"kd] tu LokLF;@vkj-lh-,p-@eksckbZy lftZdy ;wfuV@ vkb-bZ-lh @,M~l] v/kh{kd layXu fpfdRlky; lewg] ifj;kstuk funs"kd] ,u,p,e @,M~l] funs"kd vkjvkjlh] funs"kd [SIHFW] jkT; {k; jksx fu;a=.k vf/kdkjh] jkT; ds leLr eq[; fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; vf/kdkjh] leLr ftyk iztuu ,oa f"k"kq LokLF; vf/kdkjh] eq[; lkoZtfud fo"ys'kd] mi funs"kd vkS'kf/k ijh{k.k iz;ksx"kkyk dks muds v/khu lafonk @O;fDrxr vuqca/k@vLFkkbZ vk/kkj ij dk;Z djus ij vuqHko izek.k i= tkjh djus gsrq vf/kd`r izkf/kdkjh ekuk tkosxkA

(iii) vkWuykbZu vkosnu esa vuqHko ds laca/k esa fu/kkZfjr dkWye esa vko";d izfof'B;ka dh tkuh vko";d gSA ;fn vkWuykbZu vkosnu esa vuqHko ds dkWye esa vko";d izfof'B;k ugha dh xbZ gS] rks ,sls vH;fFkZ;ksa dks vuqHko dk ykHk ugha fn;k tk;sxkA ftlds fy;s vH;FkhZ Lo;a mRrjnk;h gksxkA

(iv) vH;FkhZ }kjk izLrqr vuqHko izek.k i= dks foHkkx }kjk tkjhdrkZ vf/kd`r izkf/kdkjh ls lR;kiu djk;s tkus ds i"pkr~ gh cksul vad@vk;q esa f"kfFkyrk dk ykHk fu;ekuqlkj fn;k tkosxk ,oa foHkkx }kjk pkgs tkus ij ewy vuqHko izek.k i= izLrqr fd;k tkuk vfuok;Z gksxkA

(v) vuqHko izek.k i= vkWuykbZu vkosnu ds lkFk viyksM djuk vfuok;Z gS] vU;Fkk vuqHko dk ykHk ns; ugha gksxk ,oa ckn esa vkWQykbZu dksbZ vuqHko izek.k i= Lohdkj ugha fd;k tkosxkA 8- vuqHko izek.k i= dk lR;kiu %&

(i) v/kh{kd layXu fpfdRlky; lewg }kjk tkjh vuqHko izek.k i=ksa dks lacaf/kr iz/kkukpk;Z ,oa fu;a=d] jktdh; esfMdy dkWyst@MsUVy dkWyst }kjk lR;kfir fd;k gqvk gksuk vko";d gSA

(ii) eq[; fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; vf/kdkjh] izeq[k fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh] ftyk iztuu ,oa f"k"kq LokLF; vf/kdkjh] eq[; lkoZtfud fo"ys'kd] mi funs"kd vkS'kf/k ijh{k.k iz;ksx"kkyk }kjk tkjh vuqHko izek.k i=ksa dks fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; foHkkx ds lacaf/kr tksu ds la;qDr funs"kd }kjk lR;kfir fd;k gqvk gksuk vko";d gSA"

18. A look at the provision aforesaid clearly shows that it provides for grant of bonus marks to candidates having discharged similar work to a Nurse Gr.II.

19. So far as petitioner's experience under Government Hospital undertake. is concerned, that is not in dispute. But, the bone of contention between the rival parties is, as to whether petitioner having worked as Nursing Tutor cum Clinical Instructor can be said to have done similar

[2025:RJ-JD:15120-DB] (9 of 15) [SAW-63/2022]

work of a Nurse Gr.II or in other words, the duties which she has discharged can be said to be similar to the duties and responsibilities which a Nurse Gr.II is required to undertake.

20. For the purpose aforesaid, the guidelines issued by Nursing Council on 04.04.2019 become significant. It will not be out of place to reproduce responsibilities of a Nursing Tutor, which reads thus :-

"Tutor/Senior Nursing Officer:

Eligibility : Msc with 1 year experience or B.Sc/P.B.B.Sc. Nursing with minimum 2 years of experience or Diploma with 6 years experience or Post basic diploma in a speciality with minimum 5 years after GNM clinical experience.

Direct patient care:

● Ensures proper admission and discharge procedures for her patients.

● Assists in the direct care of the patient as an when reuired.

● Implements doctor's instructions concerning patient treatment, investigations and any other procedures. ● Co-ordinates patient care with other departments. ● See that the new admissions are seen by the treating doctors at the earliest.

● Ensures entry of above activities electronically as per the institute rules/protocols Supervision and administration:

● Ensures safe and clean environment for the ward. ● Makes duty and work assignments.

● Maintains good public relations in her ward. ● Handle medico-legal cases in the ward as per the existing rules/protocols.

Educational functions: r ● Gives incidental teaching to patients, relatives, staff nurses, students and the house keeping staaff. ● Assists the clinical instructor in the evaluation of students.

21. It is noteworthy that in the said guidelines, the Indian Nursing Council has provided that B.Sc. Charge nurses/SNOs can have dual appointment and dual responsibilities. Relevant clause reads thus:-

"BSc charge nurses/SNOs and Bsc staff nurses with required qualification can be offered dual appointment to manage ward/unit as well as teaching students in the clinical area."

22. As against this, job responsibilities of a Staff Nurse have been placed at Annex.R/1. A perusal of Annex.R/1 reveals that even a staff nurse can have responsibilities of teaching also apart from taking routine health care. Upon

[2025:RJ-JD:15120-DB] (10 of 15) [SAW-63/2022]

comparison of the job responsibilities of the Nursing Tutor cum Clinical Instructor vis-a vis job responsibilities of Nurse Gr.II, this Court finds that a Nursing Tutor discharges or is supposed to discharge most of rather almost all the responsibilities of a Nurse Gr.II.

23. The petitioner has filed a categorical affidavit, inter alia, stating thus:

"While conducting clinical supervision the petitioner also conducted the direct patient care in the ward/unit of the hospital. During this the petitioner conducted the function of assistance in the direct care of the patient and also implemented the doctors instructions with regard to treatment of the patient and also handle medico legal cases in the ward as per the requirement. It is also submitted that in case of teaching the petitioner teaching to staff nurses and students. It is further submitted that the nurses who are having qualification of B.Sc. can be given dual appointment to teach students decide their clinical duties. In case of petitioner, she is having qualification of B.Sc. Nursing and looking to her ability she was given contractual appointment for conducting dual job while working on the post of Nursing Tutor cum Clinical Instructor. It is further submitted that the work of the petitioner is exactly similar to the work of Staff Nurse and in additional to the work of Staff Nurse petitioner also conducting the job of supervision and teaching. It is also submitted that the post of the Nursing Tutor is also fill up from the Staff Nurse/Nurse Grade-II as per the provisions of the Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules from the candidates who are having qualification of B.Sc. Nursing."

24. Upon perusal of the averments aforesaid, this Court is of the firm view that petitioner's job responsibilities, though supervisory in nature, cannot be held to be any different than that of a Nurse Gr.II. May be, the petitioner is instructing the trainee nurses, and in that process, invariably, she is supposed to go to the hospital and give instructions and in field training to the under-trainee nurses. That cannot be done without a Nursing Instructor herself carrying out patient care and other clinical services, which a Nurse Gr.II is otherwise required to perform.

25. Case of Nursing Tutor can well be compared with an Assistant Professor in Medical Colleges. An Assistant Professor or a Professor in Medical Colleges, who discharges responsibilities of teaching cannot be said to be teacher alone. As a doctor he teaches in medical

[2025:RJ-JD:15120-DB] (11 of 15) [SAW-63/2022]

colleges and at the same time he discharges duties in the associated hospitals - diagnosing and treating patient while also guiding medical students or resident doctors. So is the case of a Nursing Tutor. She may well give instructions to under trainee or other nurses, but in such process, she herself may be required to do nursing duties. It may be noted that in professional courses, giving instructions cannot be academic only, unless the the professional duties. Guide/Instructor or Nursing Supervisor himself/herself discharges the professional duties.

26. Upon perusal of the certificates of job responsibilities placed by the petitioner along with the additional affidavit, this Court finds that petitioner has been assigned duties in a Government Hospital. Such being the position, stand of the respondent-State that petitioner was a Nursing Tutor cum Clinical Supervisor and thus, not entitled for bonus marks, is in a way writing off the work she has done, ignoring the fact that the petitioner has discharged similar work or duties, which a Nurse Gr.II is required to discharge.

27. In considered opinion of this Court, Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965, which deals with grant of bonus marks, is ameliorative in nature. If a candidate has worked under a scheme of Government and has performed identical or similar duties, which are required to be performed by the person manning the post which is advertised, the State cannot adopt a telescopic or technical approach to deny grant of bonus marks to such candidate.

28. State cannot gainsay the fact that petitioner has discharged responsibilities of a Nurse Gr.II, may be, to a small extent at least while giving on field training or giving instructions or at least in emergent situation or in absence of a nurse. If that be so, the respondents cannot deny grant of bonus marks to a Nursing Tutor, as the advertisement uses the expression 'Expression of similar work' and not work of Nurse Gr.II per se. In the face of words 'similar work', the quantum, percentage or extent of work becomes irrelevant, particularly in the given factual backdrop.

29. That apart, grant of bonus marks is an impetus provided to contractual employees, who have worked under the State Government or under the enumerated schemes of the Government and thus, denying the petitioner bonus marks on a rather technical ground that

[2025:RJ-JD:15120-DB] (12 of 15) [SAW-63/2022]

petitioner's job responsibilities are not that of Nurse Gr.II, is iniquitous.

30. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The respondents are directed to grant bonus marks to the petitioner on the basis of her experience as Nursing Tutor cum Clinical Instructor. The respondents are directed to award requisite bonus marks to the petitioner, obviously after verifying the certificates under consideration and accord her appointment, if she is meritorious and otherwise eligible. Needful be done within a period of six weeks from today.

31. The petitioner shall appear before the respondent No.3 on 01.03.2021 along with her original certificate(s) and other relevant documents. The respondent No.3 or his nominee shall verify the same and do the needful, as directed above.

32. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly. "

5.1. He further submits that the claim of the writ petitioners was

rightly rejected in accordance with the Rules governing the field as

the experience of a candidate who worked as Nurse Grade II/GNM

was to be taken into consideration, which is not so in the case of

the writ petitioners.

5.2. He further submits that the Nursing Tutor is a separate post,

than the one provided in the Rajasthan Medical and Health

Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules

of 1965'), and thus, the writ petitioners cannot be given the same

benefit of experience and bonus marks, as extendable to the

persons working as Nurse Grade II/GNM.

5.3. He also submits that the learned Single Judge has gravely

erred in treating a post separately mentioned in the Rules of 1965

for the purpose of bonus marks and preference, which was to be

given as per Rule 19 of the said Rules. He further submits that

Rule 19 stipulates for bonus marks on a particular post only which

includes length of working and similar nature of work.

[2025:RJ-JD:15120-DB] (13 of 15) [SAW-63/2022]

5.4. He also submits that there is no justification for extending

such benefit of bonus marks to the writ petitioners who were

Nursing Tutors as being contrary to the Rules of 1965 and the law.

He further submits that the Nursing Tutor may have discharged

the duties of Nurse Grade II/GNM to a small extent, but mostly it

was pertaining to teaching and the same cannot entitle them for

grant of bonus marks, as sought for by the writ petitioners.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the writ petitioners

(respondents) opposed the submissions made on behalf of the

appellant-State.

6.1. He submits that a resolution was approved by the General

Body meeting of the Nursing Council, which pertained to the

Nursing Education and Services, and the same amply reveals that

the job responsibilities of a Nursing Tutor is dual i.e. it was

required to the Nursing Tutor to also discharge nursing duties.

6.2. He further submits that the writ petitioners while making

clinical supervision, have also conducted direct patient care in

ward/unit of the hospital and also handled medico-legal cases in

the medical ward of the concerned hospital.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the

record of the case.

8. This Court finds that the learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble

Court has gone into the fact that Rule 19 clause (7) clearly

requires that the bonus marks can be given towards any work

which is done under the employment of the State Government,

that is of similar nature, thus, entitling the concerned candidate

for award of bonus marks.

[2025:RJ-JD:15120-DB] (14 of 15) [SAW-63/2022]

9. This Court further finds that Condition No.1 of clause (7) of

Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965 itself is very clear that the ambit of

the bonus marks is large and includes every employee of the State

Government who has rendered similar nature of work for the

purpose of bonus marks.

10. The experience in the government hospital has been taken

into account by the learned Single Judge so also the fact that the

writ petitioners worked as Nursing Tutor cum Clinical Instructor,

while also discharging the duties of Nurse Grade II was similar in

nature.

11. This Court also finds that the learned Single Judge in the

impugned order has reproduced the job charts of Tutor/Senior

Nursing Officer and has compared the same with the entitlement

of bonus marks of the persons discharging similar duties.

12. This Court further finds that the learned Single Judge has

also noted that the Indian Nursing Council has offered dual

appointment of teaching and discharging the actual duties in

hospital for particular post; this could be easily akin to the

Collegiate Doctors in the medical stream, where the doctors teach

as well as man the hospital at senior level.

13. This Court also finds the job responsibilities have been dealt

with by the learned Single Judge at length. The learned Single

Judge has rightly delved into the details of discharge of duties and

also ambit of clause (7) of Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965, whereby

job of the similar nature under the State Government is entitled

for bonus marks.

14. Since this Court is in agreement with the orders impugned

passed by the learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court in the

[2025:RJ-JD:15120-DB] (15 of 15) [SAW-63/2022]

writ petitions and the controversy involved in the aforesaid original

application dismissed by the learned Tribunal, is also identical,

therefore, this Court is also not inclined to interfere in the

impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal.