Rajasthan HC Orders Expert Review Of Scheme Workers’ Duties Before State Decides Nursing Recruitment Bonus Marks

In brief

The question

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

The court held

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

It also directed

It disposed of the petitions with directions that the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Department, constitute an expert committee within three weeks; the committee examine the relevant materials and submit a reasoned report within six weeks of receiving the certified order; and the State decide entitlement within four weeks thereafter, in accordance with the report and the applicable 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 accepted may approach the Court again.

Interim orders were to continue for two months from the order or until receipt of the committee’s report, whichever was earlier, and the bonus-mark claims remained subject to the Government’s final decision.

01Facts

The petitioners in this consolidated batch of writ petitions challenged the non-award of bonus marks in the Nursing Officer Recruitment 2023.

¶ 4–9

They claimed experience performing nursing-related duties under various Government schemes and relied on experience certificates to seek bonus marks under Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965, and the Government circular dated 25 April 2023.

¶ 4–9

The Court heard the petitions together because they raised common questions of law and fact.

¶ 1

02Issues

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

¶ 15

ii.Whether the Court could itself determine that equivalence, or whether the question required assessment by domain experts.

¶ 16–18

03Law Applied

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

¶ 5

The Government circular dated 25 April 2023 prescribed bonus marks based on the duration and circumstances of qualifying contractual or other specified service.

¶ 6–8

In The Maharashtra Public Service Commission through its Secretary v. Sandeep Shriram Warade, (2019) 6 SCC 362, the Supreme Court held that questions of qualification and equivalence ordinarily fall outside judicial review, subject to appropriate judicial intervention where the governing rules or advertisement are ambiguous or unlawful.

¶ 19

04Reasoning

The Court recognised that the petitioners had produced differing documents, including experience certificates, and that the State disputed whether their actual duties matched those of Nursing Officers.

¶ 12–14

Comparing each petitioner’s job description and actual work with the prescribed Nursing Officer responsibilities would involve technical and factual assessment of nursing functions and health administration.

¶ 16–21

The Court therefore declined to make that assessment itself and directed an expert committee to examine the relevant documents and duties, hear the petitioners or receive their representations, and report on equivalence.

¶ 16–21