Mahendra Singh Meena @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners inter alia with the prayer that the provision made under the Rajasthan Medical and Health

Subordinate Service (Amendment) Rules, 2013 vide amendment notification dated 06.02.2013 to the extent it causes discrimination in consideration of

the experience of working in the Hospitals of the State Government and not considering the experience of working of the petitioners in Dr. Ram

Manohar Lohiya Hospital, New Delhi, Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi and All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi be declared violative of

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the same be declared ultra vires to that extent.Â

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents issued Advertisement dated 30.05.2018 for appointment on the post of Nurse

Grade-II. The respondents have also issued amendment notification dated 06.02.2013, providing award of bonus marks towards experience of

working as Nurse Grade-II/Staff Nurse/ Nursing Staff/ G.N.M. in State Government Hospitals. It is submitted that Petitioner No. 1 is working as

Staff Nurse on contract basis in Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya Hospital, New Delhi; Petitioner No. 2 is working on contract basis in Lok Nayak Hospital,

New Delhi and Petitioner No. 3 is working as Sister Grade-II on contract basis in All India Institute of Medical Sciences. However, despite the

petitioners’ possessing requisite experience, their experience certificates are not being considered by the respondents for award of bonus

marks. It is argued that supervision and administration of aforementioned hospitals of New Delhi is under the control of the Government of NCT of

Delhi. The petitioners possess the requisite qualification for being appointed on the post of Nurse Garde-II and are also registered with Rajasthan

Nursing Council. Learned counsel argued that the petitioners are also willing and intending to participate in the selection process of the Nurse

Grade-II initiated vide Advertisement dated 30.05.2018 but in view of amendment

notification dated 06.02.2013, their right of equal opportunity for public employment has been taken away as the candidates having working experience

in the State Government hospitals will be considered for award of bonus marks and participation of the petitioners will be without bonus marks despite

their possessing experience in aforementioned hospitals. It is argued that NRHM and Medicare Relief Society have also been considered for the

purpose of award of bonus marks. NRHM being the project of the Central Government is considered for award of bonus marks, therefore, it is

arbitrary on the part of the respondents to decline grant of bonus marks to the petitioners on the basis of experience of working in the aforementioned

hospitals of New Delhi.Â

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perusing the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that grievance raised by the

petitioners cannot become basis for assailing validity of part of the relevant Rule/Notification, which is intended to give relief to such of the candidates,

who are having experience of working in the Hospitals of State Government. It is for the respondents to consider the experience acquired by the

petitioners in the aforementioned hospitals of New Delhi, but the part of relevant Rule/Notification cannot be held ultra vires for that reason. It is

trite law that the constitutional validity of any Act or Rule can be challenged only on two grounds viz. (i) lack of legislative competence; and (ii)

violation of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution of India or of any other constitutional provisions. Except the

above two grounds, there is no third ground on the basis of which the law made by the competent legislature can be invalidated and the ground of

invalidation must necessarily fall within the four corners of the aforementioned two grounds. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not prove

violation of any of the aforesaid two grounds in the present case.Â

In view of above discussion, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.Â

Stay Application No. 15011/2018 also stands dismissed.