Lokesh Shrimali vs State Of Rajasthan

Arun Monga, J

Petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to consider his experience certificate for working in the post of Tuberculosis Health Visitor, grant him bonus marks, and consequently issue an appointment pursuant thereto on the post of Nursing Officer.

At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondents has drawn my attention to the reasons of rejection of representation of the petitioner, translated version of which states as under:-

“The petitioner has attached three experience certificates, which indicate a total of 502 days of experience, including 202 days from 07.09.2021 to 31.03.2022, and 300 days from 24.08.2022 to 04.05.2023, during the COVID period. As a result, a benefit of 15 bonus marks has already been granted. Another experience certificate states that the petitioner worked in the position of TB FP from 10.03.2019 to 06.03.2021. The petitioner’s work in the TB HV position is listed as DOTS private, Nikhal Online, and sample collection, which is not considered equivalent to the Nursing Officer role, and therefore, the petitioner is not eligible for bonus marks based on experience. In Writ Petition No. 14080/2023, Rajendra Kumar Beniwal vs. State, the Hon'ble High Court has issued directions to strictly adhere to Rule 19 of the Recruitment Rules of 1965, which pertains to granting bonus marks based on equivalent work. Similarly, in DB Writ Petition No. 26/2023, Sukharam vs. State, the Hon'ble Court decided in favor of the State, ruling that no experience benefit can be granted for working in a different post. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of bonus marks. As the petitioner’s marks are lower than those of the last selected candidate in their category, the petitioner was not selected.”

Apropos, when learned counsel for the petitioner was confronted with the aforesaid reasons—that the petitioner has already been granted 15 bonus marks for working during the Covid period—he was asked why the petitioner should be given more preferential treatment compared to others who are similarly situated. The counsel submitted that since the petitioner had worked in the past as a Tuberculosis Health Visitor (‘TBHV’) and this experience is equivalent to that of a Nursing Officer Gr. II, it should be given credence; however, the petitioner has been denied the benefit of the same.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the work and nature of duties performed by TBHV candidates are entirely different from those of a Nursing Officer Gr. II and cannot be equated. He would rather submit that nature of work performed by TBHV is similar to that of Senior Treatment Supervisor (‘STS’) and therefore, they are eligible to be given preferential treatment for the post of STS.

As regards the nature of duties, learned counsel for the respondents relies, in my view, rightly so, on a judgment rendered in Surendra Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7515/2015, decided on 08.01.2016 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur. Relevant extract of which, being apposite, is reproduced hereinbelow:

“The perusal of comparative job required to be undertaken by STS and Nurse Gr.II makes it clear that not only work is distinct and different for each post but even the qualification required for appointment is also different even under the programme in which the petitioners were appointed as STS. It is clarified that while making appointment on the post of STS, the required qualification was TBHV and MSW also. It is not that all the STSs are having qualification of GNM but there may be candidates possessing qualification of TBHV or MSW. In the light of the comparative statement of the job of two posts and difference therein, the petitioners' claim for bonus marks is not tenable. The award of bonus marks is permissible only when a candidate has discharged the work similar to the post for which application has been made. In the programme where petitioners were appointed as STS, the post of Nurse Gr.II was also existing and candidates appointed on the post of Nurse Gr.II have been awarded bonus marks as they discharged the similar duties. The respondents have not made any discrimination while awarding bonus marks towards experience.”

In the light of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that TBHV / STS candidates cannot claim advantage of their working experience for the post of Nursing Officer as the nature of duties performed by them are distinct and different.

I am in respectful agreement with the aforesaid view taken by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. Furthermore, it transpires that no candidate has been given any benefit for having worked as a TBHV treating it as equivalent to the post of Nursing Grade II.

Petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.