Full Judgment Text
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1422 OF 2022
[Arising out of SLP(C) No. 24434 of 2019]
SATYA DEV BHAGAUR & ORS. ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 14261430 OF 2022
[Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 73417345 of 2020]
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 14311437 OF 2022
[Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 81558161 of 2020]
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 14381440 OF 2022
[Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 1312413126 of 2020]
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 14231425 OF 2022
[Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 61426144 of 2021]
J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, J.
Leave granted.
1.
2. In the lead matter in this bunch of appeals, the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Rajni Mukhi
Date: 2022.02.17
17:29:34 IST
Reason:
appellants assail the order dated 13.08.2019, passed by the
1
Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan
at Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”), in
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 837 of 2019, thereby allowing
the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan, challenging the
order of the Single Judge of the High Court dated
28.08.2018. The Single Judge of the High Court vide the said
order had allowed the writ petitions filed by the appellants
and directed the respondentState to grant bonus marks to
the appellants herein, who have worked under the National
Health Mission Schemes (hereinafter referred to as “NHM”)
and National Rural Health Mission Schemes (hereinafter
referred to as “NRHM”) in States other than the State of
Rajasthan.
3. Appellants in civil appeals arising out of the connected
Special Leave Petitions viz., SLP(C) Nos. 73417345 of 2020,
SLP(C) Nos. 81558161 of 2020 and SLP(C) Nos. 13124
13126 of 2020 are similarly situated candidates, who were
originally writ petitioners before the Single Judge of the High
Court, seeking similar reliefs as the appellants in the lead
matter. The Single Judge had dismissed the said writ
2
petitions vide a common order dated 29.08.2019. The
appellants herein preferred appeals before the Division Bench
of the High Court. The Division Bench vide common order
dated 23.03.2020, relying on the impugned judgment
rendered in the lead matter, dismissed the appeals. Being
aggrieved thereby, the appellants are before this Court.
4. The appellants in civil appeals arising out of SLP (C)
Nos. 61426144 of 2021 are another set of similarly placed
candidates. They have approached this Court, being
aggrieved by the judgment passed by the Division Bench of
the High Court dated 28.02.2019, thereby dismissing their
appeals, challenging the order dated 26.11.2018 passed by
the Single Judge, whereby two separate writ petitions were
dismissed.
5. All these appeals are heard together.
6. For the sake of convenience, the facts in civil appeal
arising out of SLP (C) No 24434 of 2019 are referred to for
consideration.
3
The State of Rajasthan has framed rules known as
Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homeopathy and Naturopathy
Services (Amendment) Rules, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as
the “said Rules”). Rule 19 of the said Rules reads thus :
" The Appointing
19. Scrutiny of applications.
Authority shall scrutinize the applications received
by it and require as many candidates qualified for
appointment under these rule as seem to it
desirable for interview:
Provided that in case of appointment to the post of
Nurse Compounder Junior Grade, the merit shall be
prepared by the Appointing Authority on the basis
of marks obtained in such qualifying examination
specified in the Schedule appended to the rules and
bonus marks as may be specified by State
Government having regard to the length of
experience on similar work under the Government,
Chief Minister BPL Jeevan Raksha Kosh, National
Rural Health Mission, as the case may be.
Provided further that the decision of the Appointing
Authority, as to the eligibility or otherwise of a
candidate, shall be final."
7. The respondentState of Rajasthan has issued a
notification on 30.05.2018, thereby providing that such of
the candidate who had worked under the Government, Chief
Minister BPL Life Saving Fund, NRHM Medicare Relief
Society, AIDS Control Society, National TB Control Program,
4
Jhalawar Hospital and Medical College Society, Samekit Rog
Nirgrani Pariyojna or State Institute of Health Family Welfare
(SIHFW), would be entitled to bonus marks as per the
experience attained. For 1 year of experience, the bonus
marks will be 10, for 2 years of experience the bonus marks
will be 20 and for 3 years of experience it will be 30. The
advertisement also provided that only such of the candidates
who were having experience certificate from the competent
authority as mentioned in the said advertisement would be
entitled to the bonus marks.
The appellants herein, who have the experience of
8.
working under the NRHM scheme on contract basis in
different States, approached the High Court vide various writ
petitions seeking a direction to the respondentState of
Rajasthan to accept the experience certificate of the
petitioners which was issued by the NRHM authorities of
different States, so as to qualify them for getting the bonus
marks. The Single Judge of the High Court vide order dated
28.08.2018, allowed the said writ petitions and directed the
State of Rajasthan to grant bonus marks to the appellants
5
who had worked under the NHM/NRHM schemes in different
states.
9. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Single
Judge, the State of Rajasthan approached the Division Bench
of the High Court. The Division Bench by the impugned order
dated 13.08.2018, allowed the appeal by holding that the
intention of the State of Rajasthan was to confine the benefit
of award of bonus marks to those employed in the schemes
within the State of Rajasthan and not in other States. Being
aggrieved thereby, the appellants are before this Court.
10. We have heard Mr. Rishabh Sancheti, Mr. Himanshu
Jain and Ms. Alpana Sharma, learned counsel for the
appellants and Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel
for the State of Rajasthan.
11. The main contention of the appellants is that a plain
reading of Rule 19 of the said Rules would clearly show that
the experience of working anywhere in the country under the
NHM/NRHM schemes would be sufficient to qualify a
candidate to get bonus marks. It is submitted that the work
6
which is being done by all the contractual employees working
under the NHM/NRHM schemes in the State of Rajasthan is
the same as that being done by the employees working under
the NHM/NRHM schemes in the other States. Learned
counsel submitted that basically all these contractual
employees are working as Nursing Assistants in ambulances.
It is therefore, submitted that the Rule 19 of the said Rules
itself enables a candidate working anywhere in the country
under the NHM/NRHM schemes to qualify to get the bonus
marks. The candidate cannot be deprived of the same on the
ground that only the employees working under the
NHM/NRHM schemes in the State of Rajasthan are entitled
to such benefit.
12. The learned counsel for the appellants submit that, to
discriminate between employees working under the
NHM/NRHM schemes in the State of Rajasthan as against
those working outside the State of Rajasthan, is without
intelligible differentia , not having the nexus with the object
7
sought to be achieved and as such, is palpably arbitrary and
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
13. Dr. Singhvi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the State of Rajasthan, per contra, submitted that if Rule 19
is read in proper prospective along with the advertisement, it
will be clear that the benefit of bonus marks is available only
to the employees working under the NHM/NRHM schemes
who have rendered their services in the State of Rajasthan.
He submits that Rajasthan is a vast State with different types
of topographies. He further submitted that the object of Rule
19 is only to give additional weightage for the services
rendered by the contractual employees either with the State
Government or under the schemes executed or implemented
in the State of Rajasthan. He submitted that the Division
Bench has rightly construed this aspect and allowed the
appeal filed by the State.
14. Rule 19, which has been reproduced by us in the
beginning itself, provides that in the case of appointment to
the post of Nurse Compounder Junior Grade, the merit shall
8
be prepared by the Appointing Authority on the basis of the
marks obtained in such qualifying examination specified in
the Schedule appended to the said Rules. It further provides
that bonus marks as specified by the State Government,
having regard to the length of experience on similar work
under the Government, Chief Minister BPL Jeevan Raksha
Kosh and National Rural Health Mission, would be added to
the qualifying marks.
15. From the material placed on record, it appears that the
policy of the State of Rajasthan is that while selecting Nurse
Compounder Junior Grade, the bonus marks are to be given
to such employees who have done similar work under the
State Government and under the various schemes. The
question thus, would be whether such bonus marks would
also be available to the contractual employees working under
the NHM/NRHM schemes in other States.
16. It is trite that the Courts would be slow in interfering in
the policy matters, unless the policy is found to be palpably
discriminatory and arbitrary. This court would not interfere
9
with the policy decision when a State is in a position to point
out that there is intelligible differentia in application of policy
and that such intelligible differentia has a nexus with the
object sought to be achieved.
This Court in the case of
17. Krishnan Kakkanth vs.
1
Government of Kerala and others has observed thus:
| “ | 36. | To ascertain unreasonableness and | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| arbitrariness in the context of Article 14 of the | ||||
| Constitution, it is not necessary to enter upon any | ||||
| exercise for finding out the wisdom in the policy | ||||
| decision of the State Government. It is immaterial | ||||
| whether a better or more comprehensive policy | ||||
| decision could have been taken. It is equally | ||||
| immaterial if it can be demonstrated that the policy | ||||
| decision is unwise and is likely to defeat the | ||||
| purpose for which such decision has been taken. | ||||
| Unless the policy decision is demonstrably | ||||
| capricious or arbitrary and not informed by any | ||||
| reason whatsoever or it suffers from the vice of | ||||
| discrimination or infringes any statute or provisions | ||||
| of the Constitution, the policy decision cannot be | ||||
| struck down. It should be borne in mind that except | ||||
| for the limited purpose of testing a public policy in | ||||
| the context of illegality and unconstitutionality, | ||||
| courts should avoid “embarking on uncharted ocean | ||||
| of public policy”.” |
1 (1997) 9 SCC 495
10
18. A threeJudge bench of this Court in Sher Singh and
2
has observed thus:
Others vs. Union of India and Others
| “As a matter of fact the courts would be slow in | |
|---|---|
| interfering with matters of government policy except | |
| where it is shown that the decision is unfair, mala | |
| fide or contrary to any statutory directions.” |
19. When Rule 19 is read with subclause (ii) of Clause 7 of
the advertisement, the policy and object of the State of
Rajasthan would be clear. Subclause (ii) of Clause 7 of the
advertisement enlists the authorities who are competent to
issue experience certificate for contractual employees. The
list would reveal that most of the competent authorities are
the authorities who are heads of the institution like
Government Medical College, Government Dental College,
Director, Public Health, All Chief Medical and Health Officer
of the State, All Primary Medical Officers, etc. Insofar as the
NHM/AIDS is concerned, the competent authority is
mentioned as Project Director, NHM/AIDS. We find that
reading ‘Project Director, NHM/AIDS’ to be a Project Director
of NHM/NRHM anywhere in the country would be reading
2 (1995) 6 SCC 515
11
the said words without context. When subclause (ii) of
Clause (7) of the advertisement mentions all other authorities
who are the heads of the various establishments in the State
of Rajasthan, the term ‘Project Director, NHM’ will have to be
construed as ‘Project Director, NHM’ within the State of
Rajasthan.
20. Though the impugned order does not consider this
aspect in detail, it will be apposite to refer to the observation
made by the Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan
in the case of
Jagdish Prasad and Others vs. State of
3
Rajasthan and Ors. :
“From perusal of the record made available, the
Government of Rajasthan has conducted several
training programmes for the persons working even
on contractual basis and under different schemes
controlled by the Government of Rajasthan and
Medi Care Relief Society. The training programmes
mainly pertain to the peculiar working pattern in
the rural areas of the State of Rajasthan including
tribal and arid zones. It is also pertinent to note
that the participation in such trainings is
mandatory and nonjoining of the same may result
into nonrenewal of service contract. The persons
working with Government of Rajasthan and Medi
Care Relief Society with experience similar to the
work of Nurse GradeII are posted at different
3 D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12942/2015, dated 09.02.2016
12
hospitals and other institutions affiliated with the
health projects and as such these persons are
having a special knowledge of working in the State.
A person having such knowledge certainly forms a
class different than the persons not having such
experience of working in the State. It is also
pertinent to note that the benefit extended is only a
little weightage on basis of the length of service with
experience of working in Rajasthan and not the
eligibility. A person having qualification eligibility is
entitled to face the process of recruitment
irrespective of having any experience or not. The
experience gained in other States cannot be
compared with the working in the State of
Rajasthan as every State is having its own problems
and issues and the persons trained to meet such
circumstances stand on different pedestal.”
21. It could thus clearly be seen that the Division Bench in
the case of Jagdish Prasad (Supra) after considering the
record, has come to the finding that the Government of
Rajasthan has conducted several training programmes for
the persons working with it on contractual basis, as well as
under different schemes. The training programmes mainly
pertain to the peculiar working pattern in the rural areas of
the State of Rajasthan including tribal and arid zones. The
Division Bench has further come to a finding that
participation in such a training is mandatory and nonjoining
13
of the same would result in nonrenewal of service contracts.
It has been held that persons having special knowledge in
working in the State of Rajasthan form a class different than
the persons not having such experience of working in the
State. It was found that the benefit extended by the State
policy was only that of giving a little more weightage on the
basis of experience and all the candidates were required to
undergo the rigor of selection process. The Division Bench
has clearly held that the experienced candidates in other
States cannot be compared with the candidates working in
the State of Rajasthan, as every State has its own problems
and issues and the persons trained to meet such
circumstances, stand on a different pedestal.
22. We are in complete agreement with the aforesaid
observations of the Division Bench. We find that the policy of
the State of Rajasthan to restrict the benefit of bonus marks
only to such employees who have worked under different
organizations in the State of Rajasthan and to employees
working under the NHM/NRHM schemes in the State of
Rajasthan, cannot be said to be arbitrary.
14
23. It is further to be noted that this Court in the case of
Sachivalaya Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karamchari Union,
4
Jaipur vs. State of Rajasthan and Others , has upheld the
policy of the State of Rajasthan, for giving weightage for the
services rendered by the employees, where services were used
by the State either temporarily or on ad hoc basis.
24. In that view of the matter, we do not find any reason to
interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeals are
dismissed.
25. No order as to cost. Pending application(s), if any, shall
stand disposed of in the above terms.
……....….......................J.
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
..…....….......................J.
[B.R. GAVAI]
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 17, 2022.
4 (2017) 11 SCC 421
15