Supreme Court Upholds Rajasthan’s Bonus Marks Policy for In-State Healthcare Workers: Satya Dev Bhagaur & Ors. vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 17 February 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 175

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and B.R. Gavai, J.

Can a state government limit bonus marks for work experience to only those who have served within its borders? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question in a batch of appeals concerning the State of Rajasthan’s policy on awarding bonus marks to healthcare workers. The core issue was whether the State could restrict the benefit of bonus marks to those who had worked under the National Health Mission (NHM) and National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) schemes within Rajasthan, or if it should also include those with similar experience in other states. The Supreme Court, in a two-judge bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice B.R. Gavai, upheld the High Court’s decision, favoring the State’s policy.

Case Background

The State of Rajasthan had framed rules known as the Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homeopathy and Naturopathy Services (Amendment) Rules, 2013. Rule 19 of these rules provided for the preparation of merit lists for the post of Nurse Compounder Junior Grade based on marks obtained in the qualifying examination and bonus marks for experience. The State issued a notification on 30.05.2018 specifying that bonus marks would be given to candidates who had worked under various government schemes, including the NRHM. The notification specified that for 1 year of experience, the bonus marks will be 10, for 2 years of experience the bonus marks will be 20 and for 3 years of experience it will be 30.

Several candidates who had worked under the NRHM scheme on a contract basis in different states approached the High Court. They sought a direction to the State of Rajasthan to accept their experience certificates issued by NRHM authorities of other states, so they could qualify for bonus marks. A Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petitions, directing the State of Rajasthan to grant bonus marks to those who had worked under the NHM/NRHM schemes in different states. The State of Rajasthan appealed this decision to the Division Bench of the High Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petitions, directing the State of Rajasthan to grant bonus marks to candidates who had worked under the NHM/NRHM schemes in different states. The State of Rajasthan appealed this decision. The Division Bench of the High Court reversed the Single Judge’s decision, holding that the intention of the State was to confine the benefit of bonus marks to those employed in the schemes within the State of Rajasthan and not in other States. Subsequently, other similar writ petitions were dismissed by the Single Judge, and the appeals against these dismissals were also rejected by the Division Bench, relying on the judgment in the lead matter. Aggrieved by these decisions, the candidates approached the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homeopathy and Naturopathy Services (Amendment) Rules, 2013. This rule governs the scrutiny of applications for the post of Nurse Compounder Junior Grade. The relevant part of Rule 19 states:

“19. Scrutiny of applications. The Appointing Authority shall scrutinize the applications received by it and require as many candidates qualified for appointment under these rule as seem to it desirable for interview:
Provided that in case of appointment to the post of Nurse Compounder Junior Grade, the merit shall be prepared by the Appointing Authority on the basis of marks obtained in such qualifying examination specified in the Schedule appended to the rules and bonus marks as may be specified by 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, as the case may be.”

The rule provides that merit shall be prepared on the basis of marks obtained in the qualifying examination and bonus marks for experience in similar work under the Government, Chief Minister BPL Jeevan Raksha Kosh, and National Rural Health Mission. The dispute is whether “National Rural Health Mission” includes experience gained in other states, or is limited to the State of Rajasthan.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that a plain reading of Rule 19 of the said Rules indicates that experience of working anywhere in the country under the NHM/NRHM schemes should be sufficient to qualify a candidate for bonus marks.
• They contended that the work done by contractual employees under the NHM/NRHM schemes is the same across all states, and therefore, there should be no discrimination based on the state where the experience was gained.
• The appellants submitted that denying bonus marks to those who worked under NHM/NRHM schemes outside Rajasthan is discriminatory and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as it lacks intelligible differentia and a nexus with the object sought to be achieved.

State of Rajasthan’s Arguments:

• The State of Rajasthan argued that Rule 19, when read with the advertisement, makes it clear that the benefit of bonus marks is only available to employees who have rendered their services under the NHM/NRHM schemes within the State of Rajasthan.
• The State contended that Rajasthan is a vast state with diverse topographies, and the object of Rule 19 is to give additional weightage for services rendered by contractual employees within the state, or under schemes implemented in the State of Rajasthan.
• The State highlighted that the advertisement specified that experience certificates from competent authorities would be required, and the list of competent authorities primarily included heads of institutions within the State of Rajasthan.
• The State also argued that it conducts training programs for its employees to meet the peculiar working patterns in rural areas of the State including tribal and arid zones.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellants’ argument that the nature of work under NHM/NRHM is the same across all states, and therefore, there should be no discrimination, was a novel approach to challenge the State’s policy.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the Court was:

1. Whether the State of Rajasthan’s policy to restrict bonus marks only to those who have worked under different organizations in the State of Rajasthan and to employees working under the NHM/NRHM schemes in the State of Rajasthan is arbitrary.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Krishnan Kakkanth vs. Government of Kerala and others [1997] 9 SCC 495 – The Court referred to this case to reiterate that courts should not interfere with policy decisions unless they are demonstrably capricious, arbitrary, or discriminatory.
• Sher Singh and Others vs. Union of India and Others [1995] 6 SCC 515 – This case was cited to emphasize that courts should be slow to interfere with government policy matters, except where decisions are unfair, mala fide, or contrary to statutory directions.
• Jagdish Prasad and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12942/2015, dated 09.02.2016) – The High Court’s decision in this case was referred to for its observations on the training programs conducted by the State of Rajasthan and the special knowledge gained by employees working within the state.
• Sachivalaya Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karamchari Union, Jaipur vs. State of Rajasthan and Others [2017] 11 SCC 421 – This case was cited to support the State of Rajasthan’s policy of giving weightage for services rendered by employees whose services were used by the State either temporarily or on an ad hoc basis.

Legal Provisions:

• Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homeopathy and Naturopathy Services (Amendment) Rules, 2013 – This rule was central to the dispute, particularly the provision regarding bonus marks for experience under the Government and National Rural Health Mission.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• The Supreme Court followed the principles laid down in Krishnan Kakkanth vs. Government of Kerala and others [1997] 9 SCC 495* and Sher Singh and Others vs. Union of India and Others [1995] 6 SCC 515*, emphasizing that courts should be slow to interfere with policy decisions unless they are demonstrably arbitrary or discriminatory.
• The Court relied on the observations made in Jagdish Prasad and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12942/2015, dated 09.02.2016)* regarding the training programs conducted by the State of Rajasthan and the special knowledge gained by employees working within the state.
• The Court upheld the policy of the State of Rajasthan as laid down in Sachivalaya Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karamchari Union, Jaipur vs. State of Rajasthan and Others [2017] 11 SCC 421*, for giving weightage for the services rendered by the employees, where services were used by the State either temporarily or on ad hoc basis.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The Court recognized that the State of Rajasthan had a legitimate interest in giving weightage to those who had worked within the state, due to the specific training programs and unique working conditions in the region.
• The Court emphasized that it should be slow to interfere with policy decisions of the government, unless they are demonstrably arbitrary or discriminatory.
• The Court found that the State’s policy was based on an intelligible differentia, as employees working within Rajasthan gained specific knowledge and training relevant to the state’s healthcare system.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal principles and the interpretation of the relevant rules and policies. The factual aspects of the case, such as the nature of work done by the employees, played a secondary role in the Court’s decision.

The Court considered the argument that the work done by contractual employees under the NHM/NRHM schemes is the same across all states. However, it rejected this argument, emphasizing the unique training programs and working conditions in Rajasthan. The Court also considered the argument that denying bonus marks to those who worked outside Rajasthan is discriminatory. However, it found that the State’s policy was based on an intelligible differentia, as employees working within Rajasthan gained specific knowledge and training relevant to the state’s healthcare system.

The Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The State of Rajasthan has a legitimate interest in giving weightage to those who have worked within the state, due to the specific training programs and unique working conditions in the region.
• The courts should be slow to interfere with policy decisions of the government, unless they are demonstrably arbitrary or discriminatory.
• The State’s policy was based on an intelligible differentia, as employees working within Rajasthan gained specific knowledge and training relevant to the state’s healthcare system.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“From the material placed on record, it appears that the policy of the State of Rajasthan is that while selecting Nurse Compounder Junior Grade, the bonus marks are to be given to such employees who have done similar work under the State Government and under the various schemes.”

“We find that the policy of the State of Rajasthan to restrict the benefit of bonus marks only to such employees who have worked under different organizations in the State of Rajasthan and to employees working under the NHM/NRHM schemes in the State of Rajasthan, cannot be said to be arbitrary.”

“It is further to be noted that this Court in the case of Sachivalaya Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karamchari Union, Jaipur vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, has upheld the policy of the State of Rajasthan, for giving weightage for the services rendered by the employees, where services were used by the State either temporarily or on ad hoc basis.”

There was no minority opinion in this case. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench, with both judges concurring.

Key Takeaways

• State governments have the authority to set policies that give preference to those with experience working within their own state, especially in areas like healthcare.
• Courts are generally hesitant to interfere with policy decisions unless they are clearly arbitrary, discriminatory, or violate statutory provisions.
• Experience gained under national schemes in other states may not be considered equivalent to experience gained within a specific state, especially if the state has its own unique training programs and working conditions.
• This judgment reinforces the principle that states can prioritize those who have worked within their jurisdiction, especially when it comes to public services.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no discussion of specific amendments in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a state government can restrict the benefit of bonus marks for work experience to those who have worked within its own state under schemes like NHM/NRHM. This decision reinforces the principle that states have the autonomy to prioritize those who have gained experience within their jurisdiction, especially when it comes to public services. There is no change in the previous position of law, rather the court has upheld the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the Rajasthan High Court’s decision. The Court held that the State of Rajasthan’s policy to restrict bonus marks for work experience to only those who have worked within the state under NHM/NRHM schemes is not arbitrary. The Court emphasized that states have the right to prioritize those who have gained experience within their jurisdiction, particularly when it comes to public services, and that courts should be slow to interfere with policy decisions unless they are clearly arbitrary or discriminatory. This judgment clarifies the scope of state autonomy in setting policies for employment and bonus marks in public services.