/2022 INSC 0158/
/2022 insc 0158/
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.  1422 OF 2022
[Arising out of SLP(C) No. 24434 of 2019]
SATYA DEV BHAGAUR & ORS.          ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.  1426­1430 OF 2022
[Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 7341­7345 of 2020]
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1431­1437 OF 2022
[Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 8155­8161 of 2020]
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1438­1440 OF 2022
[Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 13124­13126 of 2020]
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1423­1425 OF 2022
[Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 6142­6144 of 2021]
J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted. 
2. In   the   lead   matter   in   this   bunch   of   appeals,   the
appellants   assail  the   order   dated   13.08.2019,  passed  by   the
1

Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan
at   Jodhpur   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the   “High   Court”),   in
D.B.   Special   Appeal   Writ   No.   837   of   2019,   thereby   allowing
the   appeal   filed   by   the   State   of   Rajasthan,   challenging   the
order   of   the   Single   Judge   of   the   High   Court   dated
28.08.2018. The Single Judge of the High Court vide the said
order   had   allowed   the   writ   petitions   filed   by   the   appellants
and   directed   the   respondent­State   to   grant   bonus   marks   to
the   appellants   herein,   who   have   worked   under   the   National
Health   Mission   Schemes   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   “NHM”)
and   National   Rural   Health   Mission   Schemes   (hereinafter
referred   to   as   “NRHM”)   in   States   other   than   the   State   of
Rajasthan. 
3. Appellants  in   civil   appeals   arising   out   of   the   connected
Special  Leave  Petitions  viz.,  SLP(C) Nos. 7341­7345 of 2020,
SLP(C)   Nos.   8155­8161   of   2020   and   SLP(C)   Nos.   13124­
13126   of   2020   are   similarly   situated   candidates,   who   were
originally writ petitioners before the Single Judge of the High
Court,   seeking   similar   reliefs   as   the   appellants   in   the   lead
matter.   The   Single   Judge   had   dismissed   the   said   writ
2

petitions   vide   a   common   order   dated   29.08.2019.   The
appellants herein preferred appeals before the Division Bench
of   the   High   Court.   The   Division   Bench   vide   common   order
dated   23.03.2020,   relying   on   the   impugned   judgment
rendered   in   the   lead   matter,   dismissed   the   appeals.   Being
aggrieved thereby, the appellants are before this Court.
4. The   appellants   in   civil   appeals   arising   out   of   SLP   (C)
Nos.   6142­6144   of   2021   are   another   set   of   similarly   placed
candidates.   They   have   approached   this   Court,   being
aggrieved   by   the   judgment   passed   by   the   Division   Bench   of
the   High   Court   dated   28.02.2019,   thereby   dismissing   their
appeals,   challenging   the   order   dated   26.11.2018   passed   by
the   Single   Judge,   whereby   two   separate   writ   petitions   were
dismissed.  
5. All these appeals are heard together. 
6. For   the   sake   of   convenience,   the   facts   in   civil   appeal
arising   out   of   SLP   (C)   No   24434   of   2019   are   referred   to   for
consideration. 
3

The   State   of   Rajasthan   has   framed   rules   known   as
Rajasthan   Ayurvedic,   Unani,   Homeopathy   and   Naturopathy
Services (Amendment) Rules, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as
the “said Rules”). Rule 19 of the said Rules reads thus : 
" 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.
Provided further that the decision of the Appointing
Authority,   as   to   the   eligibility   or   otherwise   of   a
candidate, shall be final." 
7. The   respondent­State   of   Rajasthan   has   issued   a
notification   on   30.05.2018,   thereby   providing   that   such   of
the candidate who had worked under the Government, Chief
Minister   BPL   Life   Saving   Fund,   NRHM   Medicare   Relief
Society,  AIDS  Control  Society,  National  TB   Control Program,
4

Jhalawar Hospital and Medical College Society, Samekit Rog
Nirgrani Pariyojna or State Institute of Health Family Welfare
(SIHFW),   would   be   entitled   to   bonus   marks   as   per   the
experience   attained.   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.   The
advertisement also provided that only such of the candidates
who   were   having   experience   certificate   from   the   competent
authority   as   mentioned   in   the   said   advertisement   would   be
entitled to the bonus marks. 
8. The   appellants   herein,   who   have   the   experience   of
working   under   the   NRHM   scheme   on   contract   basis   in
different States, approached the High Court vide various writ
petitions   seeking   a   direction   to   the   respondent­State   of
Rajasthan   to   accept   the   experience   certificate   of   the
petitioners   which   was   issued   by   the   NRHM   authorities   of
different   States,   so   as   to   qualify   them   for   getting   the   bonus
marks. The  Single Judge of  the  High  Court vide order   dated
28.08.2018,   allowed   the   said   writ   petitions   and   directed   the
State   of   Rajasthan   to   grant   bonus   marks   to   the   appellants
5

who had worked under the NHM/NRHM schemes in different
states.
9. Being   aggrieved   by   the   order   passed   by   the   Single
Judge, the State of Rajasthan approached the Division Bench
of the High Court. The Division Bench by the impugned order
dated   13.08.2018,   allowed   the   appeal   by   holding   that   the
intention of the State of Rajasthan was to confine the benefit
of   award   of   bonus   marks   to   those   employed   in   the   schemes
within the State of Rajasthan and not in other States. Being
aggrieved thereby, the appellants are before this Court. 
10. We   have   heard   Mr.   Rishabh   Sancheti,   Mr.   Himanshu
Jain   and   Ms.   Alpana   Sharma,   learned   counsel   for   the
appellants   and   Dr.   Manish   Singhvi,   learned   Senior   Counsel
for the State of Rajasthan.
11. The   main   contention   of   the   appellants   is   that   a   plain
reading of Rule 19 of the said Rules would clearly show that
the experience of working anywhere in the country under the
NHM/NRHM   schemes   would   be   sufficient   to   qualify   a
candidate to get bonus marks. It is submitted that the work
6

which is being done by all the contractual employees working
under the NHM/NRHM schemes in the State of Rajasthan is
the same as that being done by the employees working under
the   NHM/NRHM   schemes   in   the   other   States.   Learned
counsel   submitted   that   basically   all   these   contractual
employees are working as Nursing Assistants in ambulances.
It   is   therefore,   submitted   that   the   Rule   19   of   the   said   Rules
itself   enables   a   candidate   working   anywhere   in   the   country
under   the   NHM/NRHM   schemes   to   qualify   to   get   the   bonus
marks. The candidate cannot be deprived of the same on the
ground   that   only   the   employees   working   under   the
NHM/NRHM   schemes   in   the   State   of   Rajasthan   are   entitled
to such benefit. 
12. The   learned   counsel   for   the   appellants   submit   that,   to
discriminate   between   employees   working   under   the
NHM/NRHM   schemes   in   the   State   of   Rajasthan   as   against
those   working   outside   the   State   of   Rajasthan,   is   without
intelligible   differentia ,   not   having   the   nexus   with   the   object
7

sought to be achieved and as such, is palpably arbitrary and
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 
13. Dr.   Singhvi,   the   learned   Senior   Counsel   appearing   for
the State of Rajasthan, per contra, submitted that if Rule 19
is read in proper prospective along with the advertisement, it
will be clear that the benefit of bonus marks is available only
to   the   employees   working   under   the   NHM/NRHM   schemes
who   have   rendered   their   services   in   the   State   of   Rajasthan.
He submits that Rajasthan is a vast State with different types
of topographies. He further submitted that the object of Rule
19   is   only   to   give   additional   weightage   for   the   services
rendered   by   the   contractual   employees   either   with   the   State
Government or  under the schemes executed or implemented
in   the   State   of   Rajasthan.   He   submitted   that   the   Division
Bench   has   rightly   construed   this   aspect   and   allowed   the
appeal filed by the State.
14. Rule   19,   which   has   been   reproduced   by   us   in   the
beginning   itself,   provides   that   in   the   case   of   appointment   to
the post of Nurse Compounder Junior Grade, the merit shall
8

be  prepared  by   the   Appointing   Authority   on   the   basis   of  the
marks   obtained   in   such   qualifying   examination   specified   in
the Schedule appended to the said Rules. It further provides
that   bonus   marks   as   specified   by   the   State   Government,
having   regard   to   the   length   of   experience   on   similar   work
under   the   Government,   Chief   Minister   BPL   Jeevan   Raksha
Kosh and National Rural Health Mission, would be added to
the qualifying marks.
15. 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.   The
question   thus,   would   be   whether   such   bonus   marks   would
also be available to the contractual employees working under
the NHM/NRHM schemes in other States. 
16. It is trite that the Courts would be slow in interfering in
the  policy  matters,  unless the  policy   is found  to  be  palpably
discriminatory   and   arbitrary.   This   court   would   not   interfere
9

with the policy decision when a State is in a position to point
out that there is  intelligible differentia   in application of policy
and   that   such   intelligible   differentia   has   a   nexus   with   the
object sought to be achieved. 
17. This   Court   in   the   case   of   Krishnan   Kakkanth   vs.
Government of Kerala and others 1
 has observed thus:
“ 36.   To   ascertain   unreasonableness   and
arbitrariness   in   the   context   of   Article   14   of   the
Constitution,   it   is   not   necessary   to   enter   upon   any
exercise   for   finding   out   the   wisdom   in   the   policy
decision   of   the   State   Government.   It   is   immaterial
whether   a   better   or   more   comprehensive   policy
decision   could   have   been   taken.   It   is   equally
immaterial if it can be demonstrated that the policy
decision   is   unwise   and   is   likely   to   defeat   the
purpose   for   which   such   decision   has   been   taken.
Unless   the   policy   decision   is   demonstrably
capricious   or   arbitrary   and   not   informed   by   any
reason   whatsoever   or   it   suffers   from   the   vice   of
discrimination or infringes any statute or provisions
of   the   Constitution,   the   policy   decision   cannot   be
struck down. It should be borne in mind that except
for   the   limited  purpose   of   testing   a   public   policy   in
the   context   of   illegality   and   unconstitutionality,
courts should avoid “embarking on uncharted ocean
of public policy”.”
1  (1997) 9 SCC 495
10

18. A   three­Judge  bench   of   this  Court   in   Sher   Singh  and
Others vs. Union of India and Others 2
 has observed thus:
“As   a   matter   of   fact   the   courts   would   be   slow   in
interfering with matters of government policy except
where   it   is   shown   that   the   decision   is   unfair,   mala
fide or contrary to any statutory directions.”
19. When Rule 19 is read with sub­clause (ii) of Clause 7 of
the   advertisement,   the   policy   and   object   of   the   State   of
Rajasthan   would   be   clear.   Sub­clause   (ii)   of   Clause   7   of   the
advertisement   enlists   the   authorities   who   are   competent   to
issue   experience   certificate   for   contractual   employees.   The
list   would   reveal   that   most   of   the   competent   authorities   are
the   authorities   who   are   heads   of   the   institution   like
Government   Medical   College,   Government   Dental   College,
Director, Public  Health,  All  Chief  Medical  and  Health   Officer
of the State, All Primary  Medical Officers, etc. Insofar  as the
NHM/AIDS   is   concerned,   the   competent   authority   is
mentioned   as   Project   Director,   NHM/AIDS.   We   find   that
reading ‘Project Director, NHM/AIDS’ to be a Project Director
of   NHM/NRHM   anywhere   in   the   country   would   be   reading
2  (1995) 6 SCC 515
11

the   said   words   without   context.   When   sub­clause   (ii)   of
Clause (7) of the advertisement mentions all other authorities
who are the heads of the various establishments in the State
of Rajasthan, the term ‘Project Director, NHM’ will have to be
construed   as   ‘Project   Director,   NHM’   within   the   State   of
Rajasthan.
20. Though   the   impugned   order   does   not   consider   this
aspect in detail, it will be apposite to refer to the observation
made   by   the   Division  Bench   of  the   High  Court   of   Rajasthan
in   the   case   of   Jagdish   Prasad   and   Others   vs.   State   of
Rajasthan and Ors. 3
:
“From   perusal   of   the   record   made   available,   the
Government   of   Rajasthan   has   conducted   several
training   programmes   for   the   persons   working   even
on   contractual   basis   and   under   different   schemes
controlled   by   the   Government   of   Rajasthan   and
Medi   Care   Relief   Society.   The   training   programmes
mainly   pertain   to   the   peculiar   working   pattern   in
the   rural   areas   of   the   State   of   Rajasthan   including
tribal   and   arid   zones.   It   is   also   pertinent   to   note
that   the   participation   in   such   trainings   is
mandatory   and   non­joining   of   the   same   may   result
into   non­renewal   of   service   contract.   The   persons
working   with   Government   of   Rajasthan   and   Medi
Care   Relief   Society   with   experience   similar   to   the
work   of   Nurse   Grade­II   are   posted   at   different
3   D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12942/2015, dated 09.02.2016
12

hospitals   and   other   institutions   affiliated   with   the
health   projects   and   as   such   these   persons   are
having a special knowledge of working in the State.
A   person   having   such   knowledge   certainly   forms   a
class   different   than   the   persons   not   having   such
experience   of   working   in   the   State.   It   is   also
pertinent to note that the benefit extended is only a
little weightage on basis of the length of service with
experience   of   working   in   Rajasthan   and   not   the
eligibility. A person having qualification eligibility is
entitled   to   face   the   process   of   recruitment
irrespective   of   having   any   experience   or   not.   The
experience   gained   in   other   States   cannot   be
compared   with   the   working   in   the   State   of
Rajasthan as every State is having its own problems
and   issues   and   the   persons   trained   to   meet   such
circumstances stand on different pedestal.”
21. It could thus clearly be seen that the Division Bench in
the   case   of   Jagdish   Prasad   (Supra)   after   considering   the
record,   has   come   to   the   finding   that   the   Government   of
Rajasthan   has   conducted   several   training   programmes   for
the   persons   working   with   it   on   contractual   basis,   as   well   as
under   different   schemes.   The   training   programmes   mainly
pertain   to   the  peculiar   working  pattern   in   the  rural  areas  of
the   State   of   Rajasthan   including   tribal   and   arid   zones.   The
Division   Bench   has   further   come   to   a   finding   that
participation in such a training is mandatory and non­joining
13

of the same would result in non­renewal of service contracts.
It   has   been   held   that   persons   having   special   knowledge   in
working in the State of Rajasthan form a class different than
the   persons   not   having   such   experience   of   working   in   the
State.   It   was   found   that   the   benefit   extended   by   the   State
policy   was   only   that   of   giving   a   little   more   weightage   on   the
basis   of   experience   and   all   the   candidates   were   required   to
undergo   the   rigor   of   selection   process.   The   Division   Bench
has   clearly   held   that   the   experienced   candidates   in   other
States   cannot   be   compared   with   the   candidates   working   in
the   State   of   Rajasthan,   as  every  State  has  its   own   problems
and   issues   and   the   persons   trained   to   meet   such
circumstances, stand on a different pedestal. 
22. We   are   in   complete   agreement   with   the   aforesaid
observations of the Division Bench. 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. 
14

23. 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 4
, 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. 
24. In that view of the matter, we do not find any reason to
interfere   with   the   impugned   judgment.   The   appeals   are
dismissed. 
25. No order as to cost.  Pending application(s), if any, shall
stand disposed of in the above terms.
……....….......................J.
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
..…....….......................J.
      [B.R. GAVAI]
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 17, 2022.
4  (2017) 11 SCC 421
15