[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Jitendra Kumar (2026:Rj-Jd:14696-Db) on 30 March, 2026
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2026:RJ-JD:14696-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1790/2025
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Medical And Health Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, State Health And Family Welfare Institution,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Additional Director (Non Gazetted), Medical And
Health Services, Rajasthan, Tilak Marg, Swasthya
Bhawan, Jaipur,
----Appellants
Versus
1. Jitendra Kumar S/o Shri Hanuman Prasad, Aged About 35
Years, R/o C-35, Jawahar Colony, Patan Road, Tehsil
Jhalrapatan, District Jhalawar.
2. Krishna Kumar Nagar S/o Shri Jodhraj Nagar, Aged About
37 Years, R/o Radi Ke Balaji Marg, Ward No. 29, District
Jhalawar
3. Bharat Singh Jhala S/o Shri Hate Singh Jhala, Aged About
33 Years, R/o E 72, Indra Colony, Shiv Bhagwan Ji Ke
Mandir Ke Samne, Tehsil Jhalrapatan, District Jhalawar
4. Dinesh Kumar Chauhan S/o Shri Ramprasad Chauhan,
Aged About 33 Years, R/o Plot No. 24/2, Aishwarya Nagar,
Mela Maidan Ke Samne, Tehsil Jhalrapatan, District
Jhalawar.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG.
For Respondent(s) : -----
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Order
30/03/2026
1. Learned counsel for the appellants fairly submits that the
controversy involved in the present appeal is no more res-integra
(Uploaded on 01/04/2026 at 02:40:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14696-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-1790/2025]
and it is covered by the decision rendered by this Court in State
of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Savita Manmiya (D.B. Civil Special
Appeal Writ No.63/2022) and other connected appeals on
12.03.2025. The relevant portion of the order reads as under:
"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.
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
writ petitions and the controversy involved in the aforesaid
(Uploaded on 01/04/2026 at 02:40:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14696-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-1790/2025]
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.
15. In view of the above, this Court does not find it a fit case so
as to grant any relief to the appellants in the instant appeals.
16. Consequently, the present appeals are dismissed. All pending
applications stand disposed of."
2. Accordingly, this appeal is also dismissed in the light of the
judgment rendered vide order dated 12.03.2025 passed in Savita
Manmiya's case (supra) on the same terms. All pending
applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
4-Zeeshan
(Uploaded on 01/04/2026 at 02:40:40 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
