No Bonus Marks For Work Experience In Absence Of Actual Physical Work: Rajasthan HC Rejects Claim Of Nurses Appointed After Revised Result

The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court rejected a plea by nursing staff who sought bonus marks based on past experience–as given to their colleagues who were appointed in 2008–after noting that the former were appointed only in 2016 based on a revised recruitment result. In doing so the court said that allowing the petitioners claim, when they did not actually do any physical work, would set a wrong precedent as it would open all past recruitment decisions to challenge by persons who are adversely affected by it.This the court underscored would lead to chaos. In doing so the court also underscored that a "completed selection process" can't be challenged retrospectively as the principle of finality in recruitment is applicable. Justice Arun Monga said, "Allowing the claim of petitioners for bonus marks without having physically worked, would set an unacceptable precedent where past recruitment decisions would be constantly challenged by the ones who would be adversely affected by the same, leading to administrative chaos. Certain judicial restraint has to be observed in revisiting settled employment matters, especially when there is no violation of any constitutional right". Recruitments to the post of General Nursing and Midwifery were advertised in 2007 in which the petitioners were not selected. Various writ petitions were filed and following a larger bench judgment of the Court, State issued an appointment order which led to the petitioners recruitment in 2016. In 2013, State issued notification for regular recruitment to the post wherein bonus marks were granted for past experience. Petitioners claimed that while similarly situated candidates who were appointed in 2008 where awarded bonus marks, petitioners were denied the same despite having appointment letter that was issued in 2016 but were effective from the same date in 2008.It was claimed that since they were available for work throughout but were kept out of service for no fault of theirs, they should get benefit. After hearing the contentions, the Court highlighted that, “the petitioners are seeking notional benefit of past 10 years of service prior to their appointment on the ground that, though they were throughout available to serve, but for no fault of them, they were kept out of service, as in the earlier result declared by the respondents for no fault of theirs, they were not selected. The contention being that the petitioners, having successfully challenged the earlier result, stood vindicated that they were meritorious to be selected at the first instance. Therefore, being throughout available to work, they ought to get the notional benefit for the period they remained out of service.” In this light, the Court referred to the Coordinate bench's decision in Manisha Jangir v State of Rajasthan that dealt with a similar scenario wherein the petitioners' counter-part was selected in both the pre-revised and the revised results, and he was considered to be on a better footing that the petitioners who were selected only in the revised results. Agreeing with the decision the court said, "Moreover, a completed selection process cannot be challenged retrospectively and the principle of finality in recruitment must be applied. The doctrine of legitimate expectation applies only when there is a clear government assurance or policy that creates an expectation of a benefit. The petitioners could never had a legitimate expectation of being treated on par with 2008 appointees because a). their selection was based on a later process; b). the revised recruitment result never promised retroactive benefits and c). claim of notional engagement at work due to the petitioners availability to work but yet not deployed, even if assumed in their favor, still does not create an automatic right to be given preference on account thereof in future recruitments". The court also said that the petitioners are not similarly situated to those appointed in 2008 and thus cannot claim equal treatment. It observed that "equal treatment applies among equals" and since the petitioners entered service under different circumstances, they cannot claim the same benefits as those who joined earlier. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed. Title: Pukhraj Purohit & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 59Click Here To Read/Download The Order

No Bonus Marks For Work Experience In Absence Of Actual Physical Work: Rajasthan HC Rejects Claim Of Nurses Appointed After Revised Result

Nupur Agrawal

Tags