Rajasthan HC Orders Expert Review Of Nursing Officer Applicants’ Scheme-Work Claims Before Deciding Bonus Marks

In brief

The question

Whether the work and duties performed by the petitioners under different Government schemes could be treated as equivalent to the work and duties of Nursing Officers for awarding bonus marks

The court held

The Court did not finally determine whether any petitioner was entitled to bonus marks.

It also directed

It directed the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Department, to constitute the specified committee within three weeks; the committee must hear the petitioners or receive their representations and report on equivalence within six weeks of receiving the certified order.

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

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

Interim orders were to continue for two months from the order or until receipt of the committee’s report, and all petitions were disposed of.

01Facts

The petitioners challenged the non-award of bonus marks in the Nursing Officer Recruitment 2023.

¶ 3–4, 9–10, 12

They claimed that they had worked in Government schemes or related arrangements, performed duties similar to those of Nursing Officers, and held experience certificates supporting their claims.

¶ 3–4, 9–10, 12

The State disputed their entitlement, arguing that service in a listed scheme alone was insufficient unless the petitioners had performed Nursing Officer duties.

¶ 3–4, 9–10, 12

The petitions sought consideration of their experience, bonus marks, and consequential consideration for appointment

¶ 3–4, 9–10, 12

02Issues

i.Whether the work and duties performed by the petitioners under different Government schemes could be treated as equivalent to the work and duties of Nursing Officers for awarding bonus marks

¶ 15

ii.Whether the Court could itself assess that equivalence, or whether the question required examination by a body of subject-matter experts

¶ 16–18

03Law Applied

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 bonus marks prescribed by the State, having regard to experience in similar work under the identified Government schemes and institutions

¶ 5

The State’s circular dated 25 April 2023 prescribed bonus marks based on qualifying periods of service and made special provision for certain personnel who worked during the COVID-19 period.

¶ 6–8

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 view for that of the employer or expert decision-makers on qualifications and equivalence, and that technical questions requiring specialised knowledge should be left to the appropriate authority.

¶ 19

04Reasoning

The Court considered the petitioners’ certificates and claims of similar work alongside the State’s objection that they had not performed Nursing Officer duties.

¶ 13–18

Comparing the actual duties of each petitioner with the prescribed Nursing Officer responsibilities required technical and factual assessment of job descriptions, work experience, appointment terms, and duties performed.

¶ 13–18

The Court held that it could not undertake that expert comparison under Article 226; instead, the Health Department and nursing and medical experts were the appropriate decision-makers.

¶ 13–18

To avoid deciding entitlement on an incomplete assessment, the Court directed an expert committee to examine the evidence and provide a reasoned opinion.

¶ 20–21