Rajasthan HC Orders Experts to Compare Aspirants’ Scheme Work With Nursing Officer Duties Before State Decides Bonus Marks

In brief

The question

Whether the work and duties performed by the petitioners under different government schemes were equivalent to those of Nursing Officers for the purpose of awarding bonus marks.

The court held

The Court did not determine the petitioners’ individual entitlement to bonus marks.

It also directed

It directed the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Department, to constitute the specified expert committee; the committee was to submit a reasoned report within six weeks of receipt of the certified order.

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

If a petitioner’s experience was found equivalent, the respondents were to consider that petitioner for appointment, subject to other eligibility requirements; a petitioner whose experience was not accepted could approach the Court again.

Existing interim orders were to remain in force for two months from the order or until receipt of the committee’s report, whichever applied.

The petitions were disposed of accordingly.

01Facts

The petitioners sought bonus marks in the Nursing Officer Recruitment 2023, contending that their work under various government schemes was similar to Nursing Officer duties and should count as qualifying experience.

¶ 4–10, 12–14

The State resisted, arguing that merely working under a listed scheme did not establish that the petitioners had performed Nursing Officer duties.

¶ 4–10, 12–14

The dispute arose under Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965, and the State’s circular prescribing bonus marks for specified periods of relevant service.

¶ 4–10, 12–14

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

¶ 1

02Issues

i.Whether the work and duties performed by the petitioners under different government schemes were equivalent to those of Nursing Officers for the purpose of awarding bonus marks.

¶ 15

ii.Whether the Court could itself assess that equivalence, or whether the assessment should be made by a body of subject-matter 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 using 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.

¶ 5–6

The State circular reproduced in the judgment prescribes bonus marks according to the duration of qualifying service, including modified criteria for certain contractual or temporary personnel who worked during the specified 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 judgment for the employer’s or expert body’s assessment on qualifications and equivalence, particularly where specialised knowledge is required.

¶ 19

04Reasoning

Whether each petitioner’s actual duties matched the prescribed Nursing Officer responsibilities was a technical and fact-specific question requiring expertise in nursing and health administration.

¶ 16–21

The Court therefore declined to conduct its own comparative assessment of job descriptions, work records, and duties.

¶ 16–21

Applying the principle in Warade, it directed an expert committee to assess the petitioners’ job descriptions, experience certificates, appointment letters, and actual duties against the duties prescribed for Nursing Officers, while giving the petitioners an opportunity to be heard.

¶ 16–21