VINIT KUMAR MATHUR,J. - (1.) In all these petitions, the common challenge is to validity of proviso to Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service (Second Amendment) Rules, 2018. The amended rules confined award of bonus marks (in recruitment to the cadre of Pharmacists in the State) to four categories of employees, who worked for the State Government or the Chief Minister B.P.L. Jeevan Raksha Kosh, National Rural Health Mission, Medi Care Relief Society and AIDS Control Society.
(2.) In a closely similar situation where similar rules with respect to recruitment of Government Nurses and the award of bonus marks was an issue, where the Single Judge had directed the grant of such benefit (bonus marks) on the basis of experience gained in societies, NGOs and other institutions (carrying out certain State public health programmes), a Division Bench disapproved the relief and set aside the judgment. The Division Bench ruling in State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Daulat Ram and ors. [D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 673/2019] decided on 30.07.2019 had noticed the previous judgments in Gaurav Kumar Sen and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors. [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24245/2018] decided on 29.10.2018 by the Jaipur Bench, and held as follows :- "8. This Court notices that the specific argument addressed in Gaurav Kumar was that the expression "Government"? had to be given a wide and liberal interpretation so as to include Central and State Government as well as other National Institutions. In other words, to put, the petitioners propounded an expansive interpretation of the term. The petitioners had also cited the Division Bench ruling in Dr. Rohit Sharma vs. State (Ayruveda Department) and Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.925/2014), decided on 6.10.2016 and other Division Bench judgments including Manohar Singh and Yadvendra Shandilya. This Court, however, was of the view that the Rule could not be invalidated for the reason that it confined to experience which could be granted to the candidate to only enumerated categories. The Division Bench in the latest ruling of Gaurav Kumar held as follows :- "We are afraid, validity of the Rule may not be struck down on the basis of what has been argued. Rule cannot be declared ultra vires the Constitution only because of the rule making authority did not extend the benefit of bonus marks to those working in the National Institute of Ayurveda, Jaipur, and the Regional Ayurveda Research Institute for Skin Disorder, Ahmedabad and Patna. A rule can be declared ultra vires only if it is shown that the rule making authority lacked legal competence inasmuch as the Rule violates any of the provision of the Constitution or the parent Act under which they are framed. Whether or not to extend the benefit of bonus marks to those working with the aforesaid Institutes, is a matter of policy of the State Government to decide.
(3.) Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on para no.3 of the order dated 06.10.2016 of a coordinate bench of this court in a bunch of writ petitions leading one being D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.925/2014 - Dr. Rohit Sharma Vs. State and Others, which reads thus:- "3. The controversy has further arisen because of the order passed by Division Bench pursuant to the order dated 27th April, 2016 where following order was passed:- "Learned counsel for petitioners prays for withdrawal of the application filed for disposal of the writ petition in the light of the order dated 26.2.2016 passed in DB Civil Writ Petition No.10246/2013, Yadvendra Shandilya and Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan and Ors. In view of aforesaid, application is dismissed as withdrawn. However, learned counsel for the respondents is directed to keep the author of the letter dated 8.2.2016 present in the court on the next date of hearing to explain his authority to pass an order in contravention to the Notification under challenge. If this court would not be satisfied by his authority, necessary order for action against him would be passed. Let this petition be listed on 2.5.2016 as a first case."? ;