NGO/Placement Agency. In the opinion of this Court, the State Government cannot be permitted to make class of employees in a class for which specific bonus marks are provided for experience. The experience is to be acquired by the employees irrespective of the mode of appointment. Therefore, the plea of respondents for granting bonus marks only to the employees who were appointed by the Government other than mode of appointment is not sustainable in law because it is totally discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. On one hand, the State Government is providing bonus marks for experience to those employees who were appointed by the Government in National Rural Health Mission and Medi Care Relief Society irrespective of mode of appointment and on the other hand, a complete denial is provided vide clause-7 of the order dated 11.3.2013 to the employees who were engaged other than NGO or placement agency. It is nowhere disputed by the respondents that the petitioners are performing the same duties but prayer made in this writ petition is vehemently opposed on the ground that appointment was not made by the State Government as per policy, therefore, those employees who were engaged through placement agency are not entitled for bonus marks. In the opinion of this Court, the argument of Dy. Govt. Counsel runs contrary to the amendment itself because in the amendment, the words 'similar work' is used and not mode of appointment, therefore, bonus marks cannot be denied to the petitioners, who were appointed through NGO or placement agency and are performing the similar work, which is performed by the employees appointed by the Government.
