No BONUS marks for COVID duty: HC refuses relief to doctors on RUHS recruitment

The single judge bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal clarified that the grant of the benefit of bonus marks for Covid duty is a policy decision solely within the realm of the Union government/ State government that acts as a ‘welfare state’, considering the factual matrix of the case.

The case revolved around a group of petitioners (doctors) who had applied for the position of Medical Officer and were seeking bonus marks for their service during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The petitioners had applied for the position of Medical Officer, following a recruitment notification dated October 13, 2022, issued by the Rajasthan University of Health Sciences (RUHS). Initially, 840 Medical Officer positions were advertised under the Rajasthan Medical and Health Service Rules-1963, with additional vacancies later added through an amended advertisement on November 5, 2022.

The recruitment process involved an online written examination consisting of 100 multiple-choice questions, each carrying one mark. After the examination results were declared, the petitioners filed writ petitions, collectively claiming that the State Government had failed to provide them with bonus marks, leading to allegations of arbitrariness and discrimination in violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

The petitioners argued that during the Covid-19 pandemic, they had been engaged as Covid Health Consultants (Medical Officers) by the State Government. They contended that to encourage health professionals and reward their service to the public during the pandemic, the Government of India's Ministry of Health and Family Welfare had issued a letter on May 3, 2021. This letter recommended that state governments should consider giving preference in government appointments to health professionals who had served in the special Covid-related scheme for a minimum of 100 days.

Additionally, the Chief Minister of Rajasthan had declared that personnel, including medical officers, who had served during the pandemic, would receive bonus marks in upcoming recruitments.

While the State Government had granted bonus marks to para-medical staff, it had not extended the same benefit to the Covid Health Consultants (Medical Officers), which the petitioners argued was discriminatory.

In response, the State Authorities contended that the grant of bonus marks was a policy decision of the State Government, and the petitioners did not have a legal right to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court for judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. The advertisement for the recruitment did not mention any scheme for extending bonus marks, and candidates were not entitled to claim bonus marks as a right.

The High Court upheld the State Authorities' position, emphasizing that the matter of awarding bonus marks was a policy decision of the government. The court found that the petitioners did not have a legal or vested right to claim bonus marks. Instead, the court viewed the matter as an issue of "pure pious obligations" for the State Government to consider. Consequently, the court declined to issue any directions to award bonus marks, as the petitioners had no legal standing to claim them.

 It noted;

"The matter related to grant of benefit of bonus marks is a policy decision of the concerned government and petitioners are not entitled to claim grant of benefit of bonus marks as of right. Therefore, this Court in exercise of its power of judicial review, is not inclined to issue any directions to the respondent-State to award the benefit of bonus marks by following the recommendations of the Government of India so also in furtherance to its own assurances, rather it is a matter of pure pious obligations, on the part of the State Government to consider the issue in question. This Court does not want to interfere in this respect and no writ of mandamus can be issued for this purpose."

The court also noted that the petitioners had already participated in the recruitment process under the terms and conditions of the advertisement, which did not include any provision for bonus marks. Therefore, their claims for bonus marks at this stage were considered impermissible. It observed;

"It is an undisputed fact that writ petitioners have already appeared in the written examination and participated in the present recruitment of Medical Officer pursuant to terms and conditions of the advertisement dated 13.10.2022 and thereafter, when could not selected in the merit list, on the basis of result of written examination, are claiming to grant benefit of bonus marks, at this stage. Indisputably, in the advertisement, there is no clause for giving benefit of bonus marks, thus when the petitioners participated in the recruitment process, accepting terms and conditions of the advertisement, claiming any additional benefit of bonus marks in the midst of the selection process, is not permissible in law. In this view also, the claim of petitioners for grant of benefit of bonus marks may not be held justified before the Court of law."

Regarding the argument of discrimination, the court pointed out that the rules applicable to the petitioners, the Rules of 1963, did not have any provisions for granting bonus marks. In contrast, the Rules of 1965, applicable to para-medical employees, allowed for the provision of bonus marks. Thus, the court found that the petitioners' case for discrimination was not substantiated. It noted;

"As far as claiming equality and parity with other persons, belonging to para medical staff is concerned, it is true that in the recruitment of Nursing Officer, Pharmacist, Women Health Worker, Assistant Radiographer, Lab Assistant etc, the State Government has extended benefit of bonus marks to the candidates, whosoever have worked in the covid period, by virtue of and invoking the Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Health & Medical Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 (hereinafter for short “the Rules of 1965”), which permits to provide benefit of bonus marks, but as far as petitioners are concerned, they are claiming recruitment on the post of Medical Officer, which is being made under the Rules of 1963. In the Rules of 1963, learned counsel for petitioners do not dispute that there is no rule for providing benefit of bonus marks. Thus, in absence of any statutory rule in favour of petitioners, which indeed is available for the para medical employees under Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965, the case of petitioners for discrimination is not made out. In absence of having any legal right to claim the benefit of bonus marks, the action/inaction on the part of the State Authorities for not awarding bonus marks, may not be held as violative to Article 14 of the Constitution of India."

Subsequently, the High Court decided not to issue directions for the award of bonus marks to the petitioners. However, it emphasized that the State Authorities, as a welfare state, could still consider the matter to meet the legitimate expectations of the petitioners and similar candidates in light of the Chief Minister's assurances and the recommendations of the Government of India. The writ petitions were disposed of, and all relevant applications were also dealt with in the court's judgment. It held;

"In view of aforesaid discussions, this Court while exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not inclined to issue any directions against the respondents to award the benefit of bonus marks to writ petitioners, nevertheless, it shall remain open to the respondent-State Authorities, being a welfare State, to consider the issue in question to meet out the legitimate expectations of the writ petitioners and alike situated candidates, in the light of assurance given by the Chief Minister, Government of Rajasthan as also in the light of recommendations made by the Government of India in the letter dated 3rd May 2021. Thus, the writ petitions stand disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Stay applications and other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of."

To view the original order, click on the link below: