Dismissed

Rakesh Lal Meena and Ors. v. State of Raj and Anr.

Rajasthan HC11 Apr 2018CW/7638/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the denial of experience certificate and bonus marks to petitioners working through service provider agencies. The coordinate bench in Abdul Mannan held that such employees are entitled to these benefits under amended Rule 19. The present order directed respondents to consider experience certificates based on Rule 19 and natural justice principles.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to consider petitioners' representations for experience certificate and bonus marks under amended Rule 19 within six weeks.

Rakesh Lal Meena and Ors. Vs State of Raj… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 7638/2018

¶3

Rakesh Lal Meena S/o Shri Phool Chand Meena, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Village- Suratpura, Post Tehsil Sapotara, District- Sawaimodhopur (Raj.)

¶4

Pappu Lal Meena S/o Shri Jauharya Meena, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Village- Nishana, Post- Amargarh, Tehsil- Sapotara, District- Sawaimodhopur (Raj.)

¶5

Indraj Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Nanu Ram Yadav, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of Village Post- Kanchanpura, Tehsil- Shrimadhopur, District Sikar (Raj.)

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Medical Health Services, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur

¶9

Director, Medical Health Services Rajasthan, Tilak Marg, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Munish Bhardwaj For Respondent(s) :

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶13

Order

¶14

11/04/2018

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the very outset, submits that the controversy raised in the instant writ application is no more res-integra in view of the adjudication made by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in a batch of writ applications lead case being S.B. Civil Writ Petition Number 16884/2013: Abdul Mannan & Anr v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 1^st October, 2013, observing thus:

¶16

(2 of 5)

¶17

[CW-7638/2018]

¶18

“I have considered the submissions of the rival parties and perused the record.

¶19

The State Government amended Rule 19 of Rajasthan Medical Subordinate Service Rules to provide bonus marks towards experience. As per amended rule, an order was issued as to how much bonus marks would be provided and duration of experience required for it. Rule 19 provides benefit of bonus marks only to those who are discharging similar duties to the post applied for and that too while working with the Government, NRHM, Medi Care Relief Society, etc. For ready reference, amended Rule 19 is quoted hereunder:

¶20

“Amendment of rule 19.- The existing provisos to rule 19 of the said rules, shall be substituted by following new provisos, namely:-

¶21

“Provided that in case of appointment to the post of Pharmacist, merit shall be prepared by the Appointing Authority on the basis of marks obtained in qualifying as specified in the schedule appended to these rules and such bonus marks as may be specified by the State Government having regard to the length of experience on similar work under the Government, Chief Minister BPL Jeevan Raksha Kosh, National Rural Health Mission, Medi Care Relief Society, AIDS Control Society, Institutes under Cooperative Department or Sahakari Upbhokta Bhandar.

¶22

Provided that in case of appointment to the post other than Pharmacist, which are not in the purview of the Constitution, merit shall be prepared by the Appointing Authority on the basis of marks obtained in such qualifying academic examination or

¶23

(3 of 5)

¶24

[CW-7638/2018]

¶25

professional examination or both as specified in the schedule appended to these rules and such bonus marks as may be specified by the State Government having regard to the length of experience on similar work under the Government, National Rural Health Mission and Medi Care Relief Society.

¶26

Provided further that the decision of the Commission or Appointing Authority, as the case may be, as to the eligibility or otherwise of a candidate, shall be final.”

¶27

After the aforesaid amendment and order to specify maximum thirty marks, Government issued a circular denying benefit of experience to those who were engaged through service provider agencies. A challenge to the aforesaid condition was made in several writ petitions and in one of the writ petition bearing No.3622/2013, Manohar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors., decided by the Principal Seat at Jodhpur, held aforesaid condition to be illegal. Accordingly, even some one engaged through service provider agencies is also entitled to get experience certificate and bonus marks.

¶28

The question however remains as to whether the petitioners have been engaged in Government, NRHM and Medi Care Relief Society, etc. as per Rule 19.

¶29

I find that one of the certificate dated 06.09.2013 produced before me and allowed to be taken on record no doubt provides experience certificate but it is in reference to the judgment in the case of Manohar Singh (supra). In fact, few cases were decided by this court in reference to the judgment supra but respondents were at liberty to see as to whether petitioners are working in the Government, NRHM and Medi Care Relief Society, etc. to become eligible for bonus marks so as the experience certificate.

¶30

(4 of 5)

¶31

[CW-7638/2018]

¶32

Accordingly, all the writ petitions so as stay applications are disposed of with the following directions:

¶33

(1) The respondents will consider each case for grant of experience certificate in reference to Rule 19, as amended. The petitioners would not be denied experience certificate only for the reason that they are working through service provider agencies but it should not mean that even if somebody is not working with State Government, NRHM, Medi Care Relief Society, etc. would also be entitled to the benefit de hors the Rule 19.

¶34

(2) The respondents would see that if similarly placed candidates have been given experience certificate and bonus marks, though not eligible as per Rule 19 then they would be at liberty to take corrective action by adhering to principles of natural justice. However, if no action is taken as suggested above and petitioners are similarly situated, they would also be extended certificate for experience and bonus marks.

¶35

(3) The experience certificate would be given to those if they are discharging similar work to the post applied and not otherwise.

¶36

(4) So far as post of Pharmacist is concerned, the scrutiny of the eligibility for experience certificate and bonus marks would be made in reference to direction in Para No.1 to 3 and Rule 19.

¶37

(5) The exercise as directed may be undertaken within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order and if petitioners found entitled to certificate, consequential benefit of bonus marks for selection would be given to them. It may be clarified that selection of the candidate would not only subject to merit but all other eligibility on the respective posts for which the petitioners have made application for their appointment.”

¶38

(5 of 5)

¶39

[CW-7638/2018]

¶40

It is further contended that for the present; the petitioners would be satisfied, if the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners, within a time frame, in the backdrop of the adjudication in the case of Abdul Mannan (supra), which they are ready and willing to address within two weeks hereinafter.

¶41

In view of the limited prayer addressed; the instant writ proceedings are closed with a direction to the petitioners to address a comprehensive representation ventilating the grievances raised in the writ application.

¶42

In case, a representation is so addressed within the aforesaid period, the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. However, in no case later than six weeks weeks from the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order.

¶43

Further, if the recruitment process is still in progress, the case of the petitioner be considered strictly in accordance with their merit.

¶44

With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the writ application stands disposed off.

¶45

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J

¶46

SS/171

Rakesh Lal Meena and Ors. v. State of Raj and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Lal Meena and Ors. v. State of Raj and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reena Joshi Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Rajveer Bishnoi Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Rampal Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Murlidhar Raigar Vs Director Secondary Education and Anr.

Sohan Lal Verma Vs Chairman R S R T C and Ors.

Ram Lal Meena and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.