Vijay Bishnoi, J. - (1.) THE petitioners, who are working as District Coordinator, Block Coordinators, Coordinators Supervision/Trainer, Resource Persons and Social Scientists under Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan, Total Sanitation Campaign, School Water Sanitation and Hygiene Education, Integrated Watershed Management Programme and Swarn Jayanti Gram Rozgar Yojna in various Districts of State of Rajasthan, have challenged the substitution to the first proviso to Rule 23 of Rajasthan Rural Development and Panchayati Raj State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1998 (hereinafter after referred to as 'the Rules of 1998') vide Notification dated 06.03.2013. In the substituted first proviso to Rule 23 of Rules of 1998, stipulation about the grant of bonus marks in recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer, Assistant Programme Officer, Computer Instructor, Accounts Assistant, Coordinator Training, Coordinator I.E.C. and Coordinator Supervision, has been provided.
(2.) THE petitioners are claiming that non -inclusion of the posts held by them, for the purpose of grant of bonus marks is discriminatory because the petitioners, while working on these posts under the various schemes, have gained similar kind of experience while discharging the duties of same nature, as has been discharged by the employees who have been included in the substituted first proviso to Rule 23 of the Rules of 1998. It has strenuously been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that when the respondents have provided bonus marks on the basis of experience, there is no justification for differential treatment to the persons like the petitioners, who are discharging similar kind of duties under the different schemes floated by the State Government or the Central Government on the posts other than referred to in first proviso to Rule 23 of the Rules of 1998. According to the petitioners, there is no intelligible differentia in treating the different candidates, who are engaged in particular Government scheme from the other persons, who have effective and actual working experience. It is also contended that the baseless differentiation has no relation with the object sought to be achieved. It is submitted that when the ultimate object in providing bonus marks is to make sure the availability of skilled persons, there is no justification or logic in making unnecessary classifications.
(3.) HAVING considered the pleadings and the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners, we are clearly of the view that these writ petitions are devoid of merits.;