MANOJ KUMAR ACHARYA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are concerned with the dispute which arose initially on account of a Notification dtd. 26/2/2013 issued by the Directorate of Medical and Health Services, Government of Rajasthan, in terms whereof, in the selection process, such of the persons who were already working at the post of Nurse Grade II on a contractual basis were given bonus marks to fill the existing vacancies of 15,773 posts. These bonus marks were sought to be given as per Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Services Rules, 1965. The State sought to give the bonus 10 marks for one year, 20 marks for two years and 30 marks for three Reason: years service. This was assailed before the High Court by one Shri Mahendra Kumar, respondent No.4 before us. The High Court of Rajasthan found fault with this reservation not per se but in terms of the marks which were sought to be assigned and opined by the judgment dtd. 25/9/2013 that the bonus marks to be given ought to be 5, 10 and 15 marks, respectively.

(2.) The State filed Special Leave Petitions against these orders but the stated interim orders were found by the State not to assist in filling up of the vacancies and the appellant before us Manoj Kumar Acharya who would have gained benefit under the 10, 20 and 30 bonus marks principle also filed a Special Leave Petition with liberty to do so. Such liberty was granted.

(3.) It appears that thereafter the State Government, in its administrative wisdom took a departmental decision on 28/1/2015 seeking to have the bonus marks of 5 for one year, 10 marks for two years and 15 marks for three years as had been opined by the High Court. They also sought to withdraw the SLPs, but that liberty was apparently not granted. Ultimately, they withdrew the application for withdrawal of the Special Leave Petitions on 29/11/2016 when leave was granted and the appeal was allowed upholding the right of the State to fix the bonus marks at 10, 20 and 30. We may note that the endeavour of certain parties to be impleaded in those proceedings was rejected.