COVID-19 bonus marks cannot be denied to health workers based solely on temporary employment status.

The Petitioner, a registered Paramedical X-Ray and Pathology Technician, has been working on a contractual basis under the Chief Medical and Health Officer (CMHO), Korba, since October 2017

Respondent No. 3 issued an advertisement on June 8, 2022 (amended May 8, 2023), for the recruitment of Radiographers and Medical Lab Technologists

Paragraph 15(C) of the amended advertisement, aligned with a State Government order dated December 7, 2021, stipulated that candidates who served as temporary or ad hoc health workers in Government Health Institutions for at least six months during the COVID-19 pandemic were entitled to 10 bonus marks

Despite submitting a certificate from the CMHO Korba verifying more than six months of pandemic service, the Petitioner was awarded ‘0’ marks for COVID experience in the merit list published on April 23, 2023

After his representation to Respondent No. 3 went unaddressed, the Petitioner approached the High Court challenging the legality of the marks list

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to 10 bonus marks under Paragraph 15(C) of the amended advertisement for services rendered during the COVID-19 pandemic despite his employment being on a temporary/contractual basis.

The Court primarily applied the eligibility criteria defined in Paragraph 15(C) of the amended advertisement dated May 8, 2023, and the underlying State policy contained in the executive order dated December 7, 2021

These provisions establish that 10 bonus marks are admissible to health workers who discharged duties in Government Health Institutions for a minimum of six months during the COVID-19 pandemic

The legal principle applied is that recruitment criteria must be interpreted in light of their objective; here, the bonus marks aim to recognize and incentivize extraordinary service rendered during the pandemic regardless of the specific nature of the employment contract (permanent, contractual, temporary, or ad hoc)

The Court examined the Petitioner’s service certificate and found it undisputed that he had completed the requisite six-month service period in a Government institution during the pandemic

The Court rejected the State’s contention that the Petitioner was ineligible because his service was "temporary"

It reasoned that Paragraph 15(C) of the advertisement makes no distinction between permanent, contractual, or ad hoc employees; the only prerequisites are the duration of service (six months) and the nature of the institution (Government Health Institution)

The Court held that denying the benefit based on the temporary nature of employment was arbitrary and defeated the purpose of the incentive policy, which was to reward health workers for their service during extraordinary circumstances

Consequently, the Court found that the failure to award these marks resulted in an incorrect merit position for the Petitioner

The Court directed the Respondents to reconsider the Petitioner's candidature, award the 10 bonus marks, and rework his position in the merit list. If the Petitioner falls within the zone of selection after this recalculation, the Respondents must extend the consequential benefits to him in accordance with the law. This exercise must be completed within 90 days of receiving the order.