The Rajasthan High Court declined to instruct the state government to award bonus marks to doctors in the medical officer recruitment exam based solely on their COVID duty involvement.
The High Court emphasized that awarding bonus marks is a policy decision of the government, not an entitlement, and urged the State Government to consider it as a noble obligation.
Justice Sudesh Bansal, a single judge on the bench in Jaipur, noted that awarding bonus marks for COVID duty falls under the purview of the Union or State government as a 'welfare state.' The bench clarified that doctors do not have a guaranteed right to claim these marks based on recommendations in Clause 17 of the 03.05.2021 letter from the Union Ministry of Health & Family Welfare.
The Union Government's letter advised state governments/union territories to prioritize health professionals with 100 days of COVID duty for appointments, aiming to support healthcare workers during the 2021 pandemic crisis.
The writ petitioners' claim that the Government of Rajasthan, including the Chief Minister, assured to grant bonus marks to health personnel who served during the COVID-19 pandemic has not been contradicted by the respondents.
The petitioners contended that the state government's failure to grant bonus marks in the filling of vacancies specified in the Rajasthan University of Health Sciences (RUHS) recruitment notification is arbitrary and infringes upon the constitutional principle of non-discrimination.
Regarding the amendment of the selection criteria for medical officer posts to include bonus marks for pandemic service, the court observed that the Rajasthan Medical and Health Service Rules, 1963, applicable to the petitioners, lack a provision for bonus marks. However, for paramedical staff appointments, unlike the 1963 Rules for Doctors, Rule 19 of Rajasthan Health & Medical Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 allows such a provision. Consequently, the court differentiated the two selection criteria and ruled that denying bonus marks does not constitute a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
"Learned counsel for the petitioners do not contest the absence of a rule for awarding bonus marks in the 1963 Rules. Therefore, given that there is no statutory rule favoring the petitioners, in contrast to para-medical employees covered by Rule 19 of the 1965 Rules, the claim of discrimination by the petitioners is unfounded."
The single judge bench emphasized that petitioners who did not make it to the Merit List after participating in the examination cannot demand bonus marks, particularly since they all participated based on the terms and conditions outlined in the University's recruitment notification.
"Incontestably, the advertisement did not include a provision for granting bonus marks. Therefore, since the petitioners willingly entered the recruitment process, adhering to the terms and conditions of the advertisement, seeking extra bonus marks during the selection process is legally impermissible," the bench explained in the order, while also stating that the government, as a welfare state, has the discretion to address the 'reasonable expectations' of professionals like the petitioners and make suitable decisions.Top of Form
TAGS: Advertisement Bonus marks Recruitment process Terms and conditions Permissible Government Welfare state.
