In a writ petition filed before the Rajasthan High Court seeking directions for bonus marks to be granted for the post of Nurse Grade-II as per the experience certificates of the petitioners, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Anand Sharma found no reason to interfere with the actions of the respondents and mentioned that the petitioners were not entitled to claim bonus marks for their experience as the nature of work and responsibilities of the advertised post were entirely different.
On 26-02-2013, an advertisement was issued by the Director of Medical & Health Services, Rajasthan, inviting applications for vacancies in the positions of Nurse Grade-II, Public Health Nurse, and Women’s Health Worker. The petitioners submitted their application forms accordingly.
As per the criteria of the advertisement, candidates were to be selected based on merit, which was to be assessed based on 70% marks obtained in the professional qualification, after adding the bonus marks to be granted based on experience acquired by the candidate for carrying out similar work for which the recruitment was being done.
It was submitted that petitioner 5 had an experience certificate dated 28-03-2013, issued by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Sawai Madhopur, which certified that the petitioner had worked in the post of ‘Vaccinator’ under the NRHM Scheme for two years. It was also contended that since the petitioner was not granted 20 bonus marks, she was deprived of the right to get appointed.
The respondents contended that the criteria for granting bonus marks had been misinterpreted and that the bonus marks were intended to be given for carrying out work similar to that of the advertised post. It was also stated that the candidates who had experience as a ‘Vaccinator’ could not claim bonus marks for recruitment to the post of Nurse Grade-II.
The Court noted that the terms and conditions of the advertisement were clear and that the criteria for granting bonus marks were not unlimited but confined only to work which was of a ‘similar nature’ to the advertised post. Further, the Court stated that petitioner 5 was not entitled to claim bonus marks for the experience acquired as a vaccinator, since the nature of the work and responsibilities were entirely different. It was also noted that other petitioners had not submitted any experience certificates and, therefore, were not entitled to any relief.
The Court stated that under Article 226 of the Constitution, it had ‘extremely limited jurisdiction’ and that the petitioners had placed no material on record to show that the job responsibilities of Nurse Grade-II and those of a vaccinator are similar.
Thus, the Court found no reason to interfere in the impugned actions of the respondents and dismissed the writ petition.
Appearance:
For Petitioners – Mr. Vijay Laxmi Gauttam; Mr. Anuk Ram Singh
For Respondents – Mr. Prakhar Jain
