Mohammed Zakir vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the action of the respondents, as they did not award bonus marks to him, for which

his name was not included in the merit list.

Before the petitioner could advance his arguments, Mr. Shreyash Mehta, associate to Mr. K.S. Rajpurohit, learned Additional Advocate General

submitted that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by a Division Bench judgment dated 05.08.2019 rendered in a bunch

of writ petitions led by D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13131/2018; Ratan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.

Petitioner’s counsel opposed this suggestion and gone ahead to argue his case by narrating the facts that pursuant to advertisement dated

25.05.2018, for the post of Assistant Radiographer, the petitioner filled his form along with an experience certificate dated 19.06.2018, issued by the

Additional Professor & Head, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, AIIMS, Jodhpur for claiming bonus marks.

According to petitioner, his request for grant of bonus marks has been rejected, only because the petitioner’s certificate was not in the

prescribed proforma.

Mr. Sankhla, learned counsel for the petitioner invited Court’s attention towards the proforma-A ( - ) appended with the

advertisement and submitted that there is practically no difference in the certificate submitted by the petitioner and the proforma prescribed. He added

that all the requisite particulars are given in the experience certificate dated 19.06.2018, furnished by the petitioner.

Pursuant to query raised by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that requirement of bonus marks is given in para 7 of the

advertisement, which reads thus:

When the Court posed a query, as to whether his engagement with AIIMS can be said to be an experience under the scheme of the State

Government, Mr. Sankhla, learned counsel for the petitioner cursorily read para-1 of the reply to contend that petitioner’s right to get bonus marks

has been denied, as the certificate in question was not in prescribed proforma.

Learned counsel for the respondents then interjected to invite Court’s attention towards following stipulation in para 1 of the reply to contend

that the petitioner has been denied bonus marks, as he was working in AIIMS, Jodhpur â€" an institute run by the Central Government. The said

assertion in the reply filed by the respondent reads thus:

“1. ... … … The petitioner has been working at All India Institute of Medical Science, Jodhpur and the same is an Institute run by Central

Government. ...……â€​

Heard.

This Court finds that the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment in Ratan Singh (supra) has in no ambiguous terms held that a candidate

working with Central Government cannot claim bonus marks.

It will not be out of place to reproduce the following paras of the aforesaid judgment:

“It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that the decision in Daulat Ram (supra) ought not to be construed as binding because in the present case,

all employees working and discharging similar functions, employed by Sahakari Upbhokta Wholesale Bhandar and Drugs Distribution Centers were

primarily and essentially working only for the State and carrying out its policies.

This Court is of the opinion that the argument has no merit. In Daulat Ram â€" as indeed in Gaurav Kumar Sen, this Court highlighted that the grant of

bonus marks is a benefit which cannot be claimed as a matter of right. If the State chooses to prioritize employees working in its establishment or

directly in relation to a programme evolved by it and it chooses not to grant such benefit to others, this is neither discriminatory nor arbitrary.

Therefore, the challenge to the amended rule cannot be accepted.

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

Civil Writ Petition No. 13690/2018, 13750/2018 & 13902/2018

In these petitions, the petitioners worked for the Central Government and claim the same benefit as is granted to those working for the State of

Rajasthan.

Having regard to the view expressed i.e. four categories of employees working for the State Government or in its specified programmes, are entitled

to the benefit of bonus marks, this Court is of the opinion that there is no merit in the argument urged.

It is open to the State not to grant bonus marks to those working for the Central Government as well. All the writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed

save and except the directions granted in Civil Writ Petition No. 13884/2018.â€​

Upon perusal of the Division Bench judgment in the case of Ratan Singh (supra) and having done individual analysis of the facts and material

available on record, this Court unhesitantly holds that the petitioner is not entitled for bonus marks, as he has an experience of working in AIIMS â€

an institute run by the Central Government and not under any of the Scheme of the State Government such as Rajasthan Mukhya Mantri BPL Jeevan

Raksha Kosh Yojana, NRHM Medicare Relief Society, AIDS Control Society, National Tuberculosis Control Programme, Jhalawar Hospital &

Medical College Society, Integrated Disease Surveillance Scheme, State Institute of Health & Family Walfare (SIHFW) and an experience certificate

in prescribed proforma issued by the Department involved in doing similar work under the State Government.

A simple look at para-7 of the advertisement leaves no room for doubt that a candidate is entitled for bonus marks only in case he is working under

the different schemes of the State Government mentioned in such para or similar work under the State Government.

Needless to observe that grant of bonus marks is a discretion of the State to promote its policies and to accommodate the persons, who have been

working under various schemes promulgated by the State. A candidate cannot claim it, as a matter of right, while asserting that he too possesses

similar experience, which the person engaged in different schemes of the State does have.

Finding no merit, this petition for writ is dismissed.

Stay petition also stands dismissed.