Surendra Kumar and Others vs State of Rajasthan and Others

M.N. Bhandari, J.—1. An advertisement was issued for selection to the different posts in Medical and Health Services, State of Rajasthan. In pursuance to the advertisement dated 26th February, 2013, the petitioners submitted applications for selection and now writ petition has been filed to claim bonus marks towards experience for discharge of similar work to that of Nurse Gr.II. The petitioners applied for the post of Nurse Gr.II and submitted documents for their working on the post of Senior Treatment Supervisor (in short "STS") under RNTC Programme.

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that in terms of Para 8 of the advertisement and amended Rule 19 of Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 (in short "the Rules of 1965"), the petitioners are entitled to the bonus marks as they are discharging similar work to that of Nurse Gr.II. It is submitted that while working on the post of STS under RNTC Programme, the petitioners discharged the same duties as of Nurse Gr.II, yet they have been denied benefit of bonus marks. To substantiate the argument, reference of duties and responsibilities of PHN and STS was given. It is keeping in mind that a candidate holding the post of PHN is eligible for appointment to the post of Nurse Gr.II thus duties of PHN can be considered to find out similarity of the work of STS for award of bonus marks while making appointment on the post of Nurse Gr.II.

A reference of the amendment in the rules vide Notification dated 30th August, 2013 has been given where programme under which the petitioners had worked is being added for consideration of the experience for award of bonus marks. When the programme under which the petitioners had worked is added under Rule 19, there remains no reason to deny bonus marks towards experience when the petitioners had discharged the same duties of Nurse Gr.II while working as STS.

Learned counsel for petitioners has given details of job undertaken while working on the post of STS and also of Nurse Gr.II. The prayer is accordingly made to direct the respondents to award bonus marks to the petitioners and to support the argument, a reference of the judgment in the case of Foosa Ram Bishnoi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4854/2013, decided by the Principal Seat at Jodhpur vide order dated 20th February, 2015 has been given. Therein, work of Asha Supervisor was taken to be similar to that of Nurse Gr.II. The petitioners are entitled to the same benefit as given by the Principal Seat at Jodhpur in the case of Foosa Ram Bishnoi (supra).

Learned counsel for respondents has opposed the petition. It is submitted that work of STS is not similar to that of Nurse Gr.II. The chart for making comparison of the job of two posts has been submitted during the course of argument. It was prepared by the Government on 30th March, 2015. 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.

The petitioners have erroneously made comparison of duties of STS with PHN. Firstly, the duties of PHN are also different than STS but assuming that there is similarity of duties, it cannot be considered that PHN is discharging same duties as of Nurse Gr.II merely for the reason that PHNs are made entitled for appointment on the post of Nurse Gr.II. It cannot mean that PHN also discharge the same duties as of Nurse Gr.II. Thus for all these reasons given above, petitioners are not entitled to the bonus marks, as claimed.

I have considered the rival submissions made by the parties and perused the record.

Para 8 of the advertisement is in reference to Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965. The benefit of bonus marks has been given to those who have undertaken the similar work to the post for which application is made. The petitioners are claiming discharge of similar duties to that of Nurse Gr.II for award of bonus marks. The comparative statement of the duties has been given. It is by comparing duties of PHN with STS. If comparative statement submitted by the respondents is taken into consideration then STS does not discharge same duties as of Nurse Gr.II rather there is large difference between the duties of two posts. For ready reference, the chart prepared by the State Government to give comparative study of the working assigned on the post of STS and Nurse Gr.II is quoted hereunder:

The perusal of statement reveals that job assigned to the post of STS is not similar to that of Nurse Gr.II. In view of above, I am unable to accept the plea raised by learned counsel for petitioners. Even if duties assigned to the PHN are considered, it is not similar to that of Nurse Gr.II. The following duties and responsibilities are assigned to the PHN and are reproduced as under:

"1. MCH & Family welfare services.

Prevention and control of communication diseases.

Training of health assistant & health supervisors.

Implemental of national health programme at block level especially in relation to mother and child.

Environmental sanitation.

Health education in collaboration with SWOs.

Supervision of the work of the health assistant (female) and health supervisor.

Supervision of the anganwadi workers (ICDS) and trained daid.

Participation in the training programme of the anganwadi workers (ICDS).

Attendance in week/monthly staff meeting at PHC/SHC levels.

Checking and verification of the report and records of the female component of staff under MPH scheme.

Visit to sub-centers.

Any other duty as may be assigned to her time to time by the higher authorities."

The duties of Nurse Gr.II have already been quoted as given in the statement prepared by the State Government to compare duties of STS and Nurse Gr.II. I am not required to comment as to what are the required qualifications of two different posts because what is essential for award of bonus marks is similarity of work of the post for which application has been submitted. Taking into consideration the aforesaid, I am unable to accept the argument raised by learned counsel for petitioners. A reference of judgment of the Principal Seat at Jodhpur in the case of Foosa Ram Bishnoi (supra) has been given wherein the work of Asha Supervisor was taken to be similar to that of Nurse Gr.II. I have carefully gone through the said judgment and find that comparison of the work therein was not with the post of STS vis a vis Nurse Gr.II but Asha Supervisor vis a vis Nurse Gr.II. If finding recorded by the Principal Seat at Jodhpur in the case of Foosa Ram Bishnoi (supra) is applied, it does not provide any assistance to the petitioners for their claim to declare similarity of work between STS and Nurse Gr.II. It is further necessary to comment that finding recorded in the case of Foosa Ram Bishnoi (supra) was when the State Government failed to give comparative statement of job of the two posts to find out the similarity of work.

In the instant case, the State Government has produced a statement to compare work of the two posts thus the State Government having furnished the details required for the adjudication, the judgment in the case of Foosa Ram Bishnoi (supra) cannot be applied where they failed to furnish the required statement. It is also a settled law that courts should not generally make comparison of job rather it should be kept in the domain of the Government. The exercise aforesaid can be undertaken where act of the non-petitioners is malafide or in other cases of exceptional nature. In the light of the aforesaid, it cannot be said that petitioners while working on the post of STS discharged the similar duties as of Nurse Gr.II and thus entitled to the bonus marks.

In the light of the discussion made above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.