Rajasthan HC Orders Expert Panel To Assess Scheme Workers’ Nursing Duties Before Nursing Officer Bonus-Mark Decision

The petitioners applied for appointment as Nursing Officers under the recruitment advertisement dated 5 May 2023.

They sought bonus marks for experience gained while working under various government schemes or contractual arrangements, contending that their duties were similar to those of Nursing Officers and relying on experience certificates issued by competent authorities.

The State opposed the claims on the ground that working under a listed scheme did not, by itself, establish that a candidate had performed Nursing Officer duties.

The petitions, raising common questions, were heard and decided together.

The second proviso to Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 provides for preparation of merit for specified posts by reference to qualifying examination marks and such bonus marks as the State may prescribe, having regard to the length of experience in similar work under the listed schemes and institutions.

The State’s circular/order dated 25 April 2023 set out bonus-mark scales linked to the duration and timing of eligible contractual or other service.

In The Maharashtra Public Service Commission through its Secretary v. Sandeep Shriram Warade, (2019) 6 SCC 362, the Supreme Court held that courts should not substitute their judgment for that of the employer or experts on matters requiring specialised assessment, including equivalence of qualifications or experience; where the rules or advertisement are ambiguous or inconsistent with law, the matter should be remitted to the competent authority.

The dispute turned on whether the petitioners’ actual duties, rather than merely their employment under a listed scheme, were comparable to the prescribed work of Nursing Officers.

The Court considered that comparison of job descriptions, work certificates, appointment letters and duties performed required nursing and health-administration expertise, and that the Court could not conduct that technical assessment itself.

Applying the principle in Warade, it directed an expert committee to evaluate each petitioner’s material and provide an opportunity to make representations, leaving the ultimate entitlement decision to the State.

It directed the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Department, to constitute a committee comprising the specified departmental and medical/nursing experts; the committee must consider the relevant records, hear or receive representations from the petitioners, and submit a reasoned report within six weeks of receipt of the certified order.

The State must then decide entitlement within four weeks of the report, in accordance with law and the recruitment rules.

If a petitioner’s experience is found equivalent, the respondents must consider that petitioner for appointment, subject to other eligibility requirements; a petitioner whose experience is not covered may approach the Court again.

Interim orders were continued for two months from the order or until receipt of the committee report, and the petitions were disposed of.