JUDGEMENT SUMMARY:
Satya Dev Bhagaur & Ors. V The State Of Rajasthan and Ors.
DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
17th February 2022
JUDGES:
L.N. Rao, J.
B.R. Gavai, J.
PARTIES:
Satya Dev Bhagaur & Ors. (Appellant)
The State of Rajasthan and Ors. (Respondent)
SUBJECT
The SC holds that the discrimination of employees working under the NHM/NRHM schemes in other States from those who worked in Rajasthan is intelligible differentia and has a nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The State Policy that provided for the discrimination does not infringe Article 14. The SC upholds the states policy to deny bonus marks to NRHM/NHM Employees in other states.
AN OVERVIEW
- The Rule 19 of Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homeopathy and Naturopathy Services (Amendment) Rules 2013 provided thatfor appointment to the post of Nurse Compounder Junior Grade, the Appointing Authority would prepare the merit based on the mark obtained in the qualifying examination. Further bonus marks would be granted for experience on similar work under the Government, Chief Minister BPL Jeevan Raksha Kosh, National Rural Health Mission. The Respondent had issued the notification specifying the criteria for the same.
- The Appellants who had worked under the National Health Mission Schemes (NHM) and National Rural Health Mission Schemes (NRHM) in different States were denied the bonus mark.
- The Single Judge of the High Court of Rajasthan had allowed the writ petitions filed by the appellants. The Respondent was directed to grant bonus marks to the appellants for their work under the NHM and NRHM in States other than Rajasthan.
- The Respondent had challenged the impugned judgement before the Divisional Bench of HC of Rajasthan by an appeal which was allowed.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Constitution of India
Article 14- Provides Right to Equality
Article 226- High Courts are empowered to issue certain writs
ISSUES
- Whether the bonus mark was available to the contractual employees working under the NHM/NRHM schemes in other States?
- Whether the State Policy was infringing Article 14 of the Constitution?
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT
1. From the plain reading of the Rule 19, it could be inferred that the any person having experience of working under NHM/NRHM schemes anywhere in the country would be qualified to get bonus marks. However, when properly read considering its prospective and advertisement, it could be understood that the benefit of bonus marks was provided to the NHM/NRHM employees who had rendered their services in the State of Rajasthan.
2. The objective of the Rule was to give additional weightage for the services rendered by the contractual employees in the State.The Rule had empowered the State Government to provide the specification relating to the criteria of granting the bonus marks.
3. In Krishnan Kakkanath v Government of Kerala and ors, it was held that the policy decision of State would not be struck down unless it was demonstrably capricious or arbitrary and the reason for its enforcement were uninformed or it infringed any statute or provisions of the Constitution. The Court was allowed to only test the illegality and unconstitutionality of the policy. It was held that deliberation over the following question was not required:
a. Whether there was wisdom in the policy decision of the State?
b. Whether a better or more comprehensive policy decision was possible to be introduced?
c. Whether the policy decision was unwise and was likely to defeat the purpose for which it was taken?
4. In Sher Singh and Ors vs. Union of India and Ors, it was held that expect for the situations where the policy decision of State was unfair, mala fide or contrary to any statutory directions, the Court would be slow in interfering with the matter of State Policy. In Sachivalaya Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karamchari Union, Jaipur vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors, the SC had upheld the policy of the State of Rajasthan of giving weightage for the services rendered by the employees in temporary or on ad hoc basis in the State itself.
5. In Jagdish Prasad and Ors vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors, the HC of Rajasthan had held that people who had special knowledge about working in the State of Rajasthan were different from those who did not have the experience of working in the State. The benefit extended by the State policy was to add weightage on the basis of experience. The experienced candidates in other States would not be able to compare with the candidates who had previously worked in the State.
CONCLUSION
The Court held that every State had different topography, problems and issues and the person trained in the State stood on a different pedestal from those who did not possess the experience. The impugned judgment of the Divisional Bench of HC of Rajasthan was not interfered with. The appeal was dismissed holding that the policy of the State of Rajasthan to restrict the granting of bonus marks only to the employees who had worked in the State of Rajasthan under various schemes was not arbitrary.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
