Mahesh Chand Bareth vs The State Of Rajasthan

2024 INSC 466 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7906 OF 2010

MAHESH CHAND BARETH & ANR. APPELLANT(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. RESPONDENT(s)

With

Civil Appeal No. _____ of 2024 [@SLP(C) No.34742/2013] Civil Appeal Nos. 8656-8668/2011 Civil Appeal No. 9618/2011 Civil Appeal No.10709/2011 Civil Appeal No.10712/2011 Civil Appeal No.10711/2011 Civil Appeal No.10710/2011 Civil Appeal No.6898/2012 Civil Appeal No.1668/2012 Civil Appeal No.1038/2012 Civil Appeal No. 11332/2011 Civil Appeal No.11442/2011 Civil Appeal No.11407/2011 Civil Appeal No.4559/2012 Civil Appeal Nos.6096-6104/2012 Signature Not Verified Civil Appeal No.8661/2012 Digitally signed by Deepak Singh Date: 2024.07.08 16:53:34 IST Civil Appeal No.______ of 2024 Reason:

[SLP(C) No.34663/2013] Civil Appeal No.322/2013 Civil Appeal Nos.9328-9331/2010

1 Civil Appeal No.10281/2010 Civil Appeal Nos. 2800-2802/2011 Civil Appeal Nos. 2806-2808/2011 Civil Appeal No.2803/2011 Civil Appeal Nos.2804-2805/2011 Civil Appeal No.2980/2011 Civil Appeal No.2978/2011 Civil Appeal No.2979/2011 Civil Appeal No.2976/2011 Civil Appeal No.2977/2011 Civil Appeal No.4569/2011 Civil Appeal No.3732/2011 Civil Appeal No.5180/2011 Civil Appeal No.5183/2011 Civil Appeal No.3731/2011 Civil Appeal No.5182/2011 Civil Appeal No.7646/2011 Civil Appeal No.1210/2012 Civil Appeal No.8302/2010 Civil Appeal No.2982/2011 Civil Appeal No.2981/2011 Civil Appeal No.2921/2011 Civil Appeal No.3730/2011 Civil Appeal No.4688/2011 Civil Appeal No.4745/2011 Civil Appeal No.5258/2011 Civil Appeal No.8215/2013

JUDGMENT

K.V. Viswanathan, J.

1. Leave granted in SLP (Civil) No. 34742 of 2013

and SLP (Civil) No. 34663 of 2013.

2

2. This batch of 47 appeals involves common

questions of law. They arise from the judgments

of the Division Bench of the High Court of

Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench,

Jaipur. The main appeal, namely, Civil Appeal

7906 of 2010 (Mahesh Chand Bareth & Anr. Vs.

State of Rajasthan & Ors.) (hereinafter referred to

as ‘Mahesh Chand Bareth’) arises out of a

judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court

of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench,

Jaipur in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 402 of

2009 dated 21.05.2010. The other matters arise

out of the same batch as Mahesh Chand Bareth

or out of the judgments relying on Mahesh

Chand Bareth or based on the judgments which,

in turn, relied on Mahesh Chand Bareth. By

virtue of the said judgments, the appellants were

denied relief. The appellants challenged the

3 selection of candidates to the post of

“Prabodhak” (teacher) by virtue of advertisement

issued on 31.05.2008. Recruitment and other

service conditions for the post of Prabodhak are

governed by the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj

Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008 (hereinafter

referred to as the ‘Rules’).

3. About 20060 vacancies were advertised and the

vacancies came to be filled up soon thereafter. The

grievance of the appellants is that their

candidature should also be considered for the

appointment on the post of ‘Prabodhak’, by

adopting similar criteria in the grant of bonus

marks for teaching experience as was done in the

case of the applicants who had experience of

working in Government educational projects.

Their further grievance is that Rule 13(v) of the

Rules insofar as it provides for age relaxation to

those persons serving under educational projects

4 is a provision which is unconstitutional and

invalid.

Background facts:

4. A brief narration of the background facts is

essential for appreciating the issues involved in

this case. The Shiksha Karmi Project was a

unique initiative launched in the State of

Rajasthan in 1987 with assistance from the

Swedish International Development Cooperation

Agency (SIDA). The object was to seek to reach out

to children in remote rural areas where the formal

primary schools are either not in existence or

dysfunctional. Local youth with some basic

educational qualifications were identified, trained

and provided continuous educational support to

teach children in Shiksha Karmi Day Schools,

Prehar Pathshalas (Schools of convenient timings)

and Angan Pathshalas (Courtyard Schools).

5

5. The concept of Shiksha Karmi Project (as is clear

to us from the document containing a study,

placed on record by the appellants) indicates that

the Shiksha Karmi Project rested on the

assumption that barefoot teachers belonging to

the local community, who enjoy local community

support if intensively trained, can overcome lack

of formal educational qualification.

6. They were selected through an established

procedure laid out in the manuals and once the

Gram Sabha voted on the creation of a Shiksha

Karmi School, spot tests were held to identify

Shiksha Karmis. The Shiksha Karmi Project had

significant overlaps with the Lok Jumbish Project

and the District Primary Education Programme

(DPEP).

7. The Shiksha Karmi Project was fairly successful

in reaching out to children from disadvantaged

communities. A person serving in various

6 educational projects possessed rich experience of

teaching and motivating people for education in

rural areas. The workers were engaged in the

name of Shiksha Karmis to address the problem

of teacher absenteeism, poor enrolment, high

dropout trends and inadequate access to

education. The workers were to get only a fixed

honorarium. The projects were introduced to

accelerate universalization of elementary

education. After the passage of the 83rd

Constitutional Amendment and the setting up of

an elected Panchayat structure, the project

worked in tandem with the elected representative

members of the Panchayat.

Formulation of Rules:

8. When matters stood thus, a Cabinet note was

prepared which set out that to provide access to

education to children living in far-flung

areas/difficult terrain/small villages (Hamlet)

7 called Dhanis, a new regular cadre in the name of

Prabodhak and Senior Prabodhak be created. As

a first step, Section 89 of the Rajasthan

Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 was amended and in

89(2)(v) ‘Prabodhak’ and ‘Senior Prabodhak’ were

added as one of the grades. Section 89(2)(v), (5) &

6B reads as under:

“89. Constitution of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Service.

(2) The Service may be divided into different categories, such category being divided into different grades, and shall consist of -

(v) Prabodhak and Senior Prabodhak.

(5) All appointed to posts in the service shall be made-

(a) by direct recruitment; or

(b) By promotion ; or

(c) by transfer.

6B. Appointed on the posts specified in clause

(v) of Sub-section (2) Shall be made by additional Chief Executive Office-cum-District Education officer (Elementary-Education) of the District concerned in accordance with the rules made in this behalf by the State Government, from out of persons selected for the posts by the recruitment committee constituted by the Government in accordance with the rules made by the State

8 Government in this Behalf:

9. Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102 of the

Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 were framed

the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service

Rules, 2008. Certain relevant clauses of the

Rules are extracted hereunder:

“2. Definitions.

In these rules unless the context otherwise requires,-

(c) "Direct recruitment" means recruitment made in accordance with Part IV of these rules;

(k) "Teaching Experience" for the purpose of direct recruitment includes the experience gained in supervisory capacity in any recognized educational institution or project;

6. Methods of Recruitment.

Recruitment to the service after the commencement of the rules shall be made by the following methods:-

(a) by direct recruitment in accordance with Part IV of these rules,

(b) by promotion in accordance with Part V of these rules.

13 Age.

A candidate for direct recruitment to a post enumerated in the Schedule must have attained the age of 23 years and must not have attained the age of 35 years on the first day of January

9 following the last date fixed for receipt of applications:

Provided

(v) that the person serving under the educational project in the State viz Rajiv Gandhi Pathshala/Shiksha Karmi Board/Lok Jumbish Pariyojana/Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan/District Primary Education Programme shall be deemed to be within age limit, had they been within the age limit when they were initially engaged even though they may have crossed the age limit at the time of direct recruitment.

14. Academic and Professional Qualifications. A candidate for direct recruitment to the posts specified in the Schedule shall, in addition to such experience as is required shall possess –

(i) the qualification and experience given in column 6 of the schedule, and

(ii) working knowledge of Hindi written in Devnagri Scripts and knowledge of Rajasthani culture.

25. Recommendation of the Committee:-

The committee shall prepare a list of the candidates whom, they consider suitable for appointment to the posts concerned, arranged in the order of merit and forward the same to the Appointing Authority:

Provided that the Committee may, to the extent of 50% of the advertised vacancies, keep names of suitable candidates on the reserve list. The names of such candidates may, on requisition, be recommended in the order of merit to the Appointing Authority within 6 months from the date on which the Committee forwards the original list to the Appointing Authority.

10 Schedule

S. No. Name of Post Method of Post from Qualification Qualification and Remarks Recruitme which s and experience for nt with promotion experience direct percentage is to be for Recruitment made Promotion

2 Prabodhak 100% by - - Senior Secondary (4500-7000) Direct School Certificate Recruitme or Intermediate or nt its equivalent, with Diploma or certificate in basic teachers training of a duration of not less than two years of Diploma or certificate in elementary teachers training of a duration of not less than two years.

OR Bachelor of Elementary Education (B. El.

Ed.) OR Graduation with Bachelor of Education (B. Ed.) or its equivalent AND Must have at least 5 years continuous teaching experience without any break in any recognized educational institution/ educational project.

11 Guidelines of 27.05.2008 & advertisement of

31.05.2008:

10. Before the advertisement was issued on

31.05.2008, appropriate guidelines were

formulated on 27.05.2008 for the purpose of

selection of Prabodhak. The guidelines dealt

with various aspects including award of

bonus marks. Among the matters dealt with

apart from educational qualifications and

emoluments were also matters pertaining to

disqualification if the applicant had more

than two children on or after 01.06.2002;

disqualification with regard to persons

having more than one spouse and of persons

who had obtained dowry during their

weddings. The guidelines also dealt with the

requirements with regard to community

certificate; reservation of 30% for women of

which 5% was to be for widows; requirements

12 of age limit and relaxation. One of the clauses

provided as under :

“Selection Process: -

Selection will be done entirely through interview for which a total of 100 marks have been allotted. The classification of these numbers is as follows: - General Knowledge – maximum 40 marks Personality – maximum 35 marks Experience - maximum 25 marks A maximum of 10 marks will be given according to 2 marks per year for a maximum of 5 years of teaching/supervision experience. If the experience is for the employee receiving honorarium under the projects run by the state government, then he will be given 5 marks for each academic session, maximum 25 marks.”

11. Thereafter, on 31.05.2008, advertisement for

district-wise recruitment for the post of

Prabodhak was issued and selection came to be

made. The appellants, who are teachers in

recognized educational institutions filed writ

petitions aggrieved by the award of excess bonus

marks for the candidate with project experience.

In some writ petitions, the age relaxation

granted to the project employed applicants were

13 also challenged.

Contentions of Appellants:

12. The appellants contend that Rule 13 (v) of the

Rules providing age relaxation only to a few

categories of teachers of certain government

projects and denial of the same to other similarly

situated teachers is discriminatory and violative

of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Insofar

as the award of bonus marks is concerned,

learned counsels relying on Rule 2(k) which

deals with teaching experience, point out that

granting additional marks to para teachers

having teaching experience from government

projects is ultra vires the Rules.

13. Learned counsels also contend that the

advertisement of 31.05.2008 did not sanction

the grant of bonus marks and the administrative

guidelines dated 27.05.2008 were not brought in

public domain. It was argued that the rules of

14 the game have been changed after the match has

begun. It was contended that if the intention of

the legislature was to create the said post only

for para teachers working in project, the same

would not have been offered to private and other

teachers at all. Learned counsels further

contend that the Rules do not provide for grant

of any bonus marks. Learned counsels for the

appellants argued that the effect of awarding

extra bonus marks for project experience has

the effect of an indirect absorption of all the

project appointees and this, according to learned

counsels, was contrary to the Rules. Learned

counsels for the appellants relied on the

judgment in Bedanga Talukdar vs.

Saifudaullah Khan & Ors., (2011) 12 SCC 85

to argue that the selection process should be

strictly in accordance with the stipulated

selection procedure. Learned counsels also

15 cited State of Maharashtra vs. Raj Kumar,

(1982) 3 SCC 313.

Contentions of the State:

14. The State contended that there was a historical

background to the introduction of the Rules; that

there was a laudable objective of achieving the

universalization of elementary education and

such educational projects initiatives had led to

significant increase in literacy rate in Rajasthan

from 38% to 66% between 1991 to 2011; that

persons who had worked in the aforesaid

educational projects were having valuable

experience working in far flung areas and had

direct interaction and connection with children.

That the projects were started to mitigate the

absenteeism of teachers in the rural areas

especially in small villages. Added to this, there

were dropouts from schools and to tackle all these

several initiatives in the form of educational

16 projects were introduced.

15. According to the State, ‘Prabodhak’ was to

facilitate and encourage children to attend

schools. The State contended that as part of the

selection process guidelines for the purpose of

giving marks for experience can always be legally

prescribed. All the Prabodhaks who were

recruited possessed the minimum educational

qualification and according to the State that was

clear from the advertisement, which contained a

specific clause with regard to the minimum

qualification of Basic School Teaching Certificate

(BSTC) for primary and Bachelor of Education

(B.Ed) for imparting education for middle school

students.

16. The State contended that the experience gained in

the projects has reasonable nexus with the

concept of Prabodhak for which the newly framed

Prabodhak Rules and Cadre were created. Insofar

17 as age relaxation was concerned, it was

contended by the State that it was meant for

persons who worked in the projects after joining

within the age limit but have now become over

age. According to the State, the idea was not to

oust from consideration these persons who had

worked in the education projects for significant

number of years. Hence age relaxation was

provided to them. According to the State, there

was nothing discriminatory about it. In support of

the submission, learned counsels for the State

relied on Satya Dev Bhagaur & Ors. Vs. The

State of Rajasthan & Ors., (2022) 5 SCC 314.

17. The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench

declined relief to the appellants. Aggrieved the

appellants are before us. We have also heard the

learned counsels for the parties proposing to

implead or intervene.

18 Questions for consideration:

18. The two questions that arise for consideration

are:

i. Is Rule 13(v) of the Rules, insofar as it

provides age relaxation to the persons

serving under educational projects

discriminatory and contrary to Article 14

of the Constitution of India?

ii. Is the award of bonus marks to the project

employed applicants discriminatory and

ultra vires the Rules? Are the guidelines of

27.05.2008 sanctioning the award of

bonus marks on a differential basis for

applicants with project experience and

other applicants invalid for any other

reason?

Question No. 1:

19. To answer this, a full look at Rule 13 is essential:

“13. Age.

19 A candidate for direct recruitment to a post enumerated in the Schedule must have attained the age of 23 years and must not have attained the age of 35 years on the first day of January following the last date fixed for receipt of applications :

Provided -

(i) that the upper age limit mentioned above, shall be relaxed by 5 years in the case of male candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and the Other Backward classes.

(ii) that the upper age limit mentioned above shall be relaxed by 5 years in case of women candidates belonging to General Category.

(iii) that the upper age limit mentioned above shall be relaxed by 10 years in the case of women candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and the Other Backward classes.

(iv) that the upper age limit mentioned above shall be 50 years in the case of Ex-service personnel and the reservists, namely the Defence Service Personnel who were transferred to the reserve.

(v) that the person serving under the educational project in the State viz Rajiv Gandhi Pathshala/Shiksha Karmi Board/Lok Jumbish Pariyojana/Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan/District Primary Education Programme shall be deemed to be within age limit, had they been within the age limit when they were initially engaged even though they may have crossed the age limit at the time of direct recruitment.

(vi) that the upper age limit mentioned above shall be relaxed by a period equal to the service rendered in the NCC in the case of Cadet instructors and if the resultant age does not exceed the prescribed maximum age limit by more than three years, they shall be deemed to be within the prescribed age limit.

(vii) that the Released Emergency Commissioned Officers and Short Service Commissioned Officers after release from the Army shall be

20 deemed to be within the age limit even though they have crossed the age limit when they appear before the Committee had they been eligible as such at the time of their joining the Commission in the Army.

(viii) that there shall be no upper age limit in the case of widows and divorced women.”

20. Fixing of minimum and maximum age

requirement is a policy decision. In this case, the

said decision is engrafted in Rule 13. A careful

perusal of the Rule reveals that the minimum

age required was 23 years and the maximum

outer limit was 35 years. In the proviso there are

several categories to which relaxation has been

granted. Under clause (i) of the proviso, a

relaxation of 5 years is granted to male

candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes,

Scheduled Tribes and the Other Backward

classes. Under clause (ii) of the proviso, the

upper age limit is relaxed by 5 years in case of

women candidates belonging to General

Category and under clause (iii) it is relaxed by 10

years in the case of women candidates belonging

21 to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and

the Other Backward classes. Under Clause (iv),

the age relaxation is of 50 years in the case of

Ex-service Personnel and the reservists, namely

the Defence Service Personnel who were

transferred to the reserve.

21. Thereafter, we have clause (v) which states that

the person serving under the educational project

in the State, namely, Rajiv Gandhi

Pathshala/Shiksha Karmi Board/Lok Jumbish

Pariyojana/Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan/District

Primary Education Programme shall be deemed to

be within age limit, had they been within the age

limit when they were initially engaged even

though they may have crossed the age limit at the

time of direct recruitment. Thereafter, we have

clause (vi) which states that the upper age limit

mentioned above shall be relaxed by a period

equal to the service rendered in the NCC in the

22 case of Cadet instructors and if the resultant age

does not exceed the prescribed maximum age

limit by more than three years, they shall be

deemed to be within the prescribed age limit. In

clause (vii) the Released Emergency

Commissioned Officers and Short Service

Commissioned Officers after release from the

Army shall be deemed to be within the age limit

even though they have crossed the age limit when

they appear before the Committee had they been

eligible as such at the time of their joining the

Commission in the Army. So finally in clause (viii)

it is provided that there shall be no upper age limit

in the case of widows and divorced women.

22. The challenge of the appellants is only to sub

clause (v). We find that the provisions generally

including sub clause (v) are not arbitrary or

discriminatory. Insofar as the clause (v) is

concerned, as has been mentioned hereinabove,

23 the historical background leading to the

enactment of the Rules itself provides a

justification for granting relaxation to the persons

serving under the educational project, if they fulfil

the condition that they were within the age limit

when they were initially engaged.

23. As the counter affidavit of the State indicates that

the projects were designed to deal with absentee

teachers in the far flung areas which was causing

a serious jeopardy to the education of the rural

children. The para teachers, as they were called,

worked under difficult circumstances. They had

the advantage of interacting personally with the

children of the far-flung areas. They only received

an honorarium. The projects themselves played a

large part in uplifting the elementary education

programme in the State. The para teachers

motivated the children to come to school. It was

in this background that the grade of ‘Prabodhak’

24 and Senior ‘Prabodhak’ were encadred and

separate rules enacted.

24. No doubt, under the Rules, opportunity to apply

was also given to all those who possess the

essential qualifications and who had teaching

experience in any recognized educational

institutions apart from the educational projects.

This, however, does not mean that those who

served in projects did not form a separate class.

There was a valid classification based on

intelligible differentia which distinguished

applicants with project experience and those who

lacked project experience. Further the differentia

had a rational relation to the object sought to be

achieved by the Rules. In fact, the job of a

Prabodhak was exactly the job that the para

teachers carried out in the projects and if the

Government felt that the experience gained by

them should not be lost and in that regard

25 granted them age relaxation, provided they fulfil

the condition of being within the age limit at the

time of their initial appointment in the project, no

fault can be found with the same.

25. Dealing with the similar challenge in Union of

India & Ors v. Shivbachan Rai, (2001) 9 SCC

356, this Court held that the prescribing of any

age limit for a given post, as also deciding the

extent to which any relaxation can be given to the

said age limit are essentially matters of policy. It

was further held that it was open for the

Government while framing the rules to prescribe

such age limits or to prescribe the extent to which

any relaxation can be given. Applying the said

principle to this case, we find that the relaxation

provided for in Rule 13(v) is not arbitrary or

unreasonable.

26 Question No.2:

26. Insofar as the award of bonus marks is

concerned, a careful perusal of the guidelines

indicates that it was issued before the

advertisement and all that it provided was out of

the allotted maximum marks of 25 for the

experience, ordinarily 2 marks were to be given

for every year with a cap of 10 marks. However, if

the experience is for the employee receiving

honorarium under the projects run by the State

Government, then he was to be given 5 marks for

each academic session with the maximum of 25

marks. Even if part of the experience was in a

project to that extent extra marks were provided

to all the applicants.

27. In the application form, there was a specific

column, namely, column fourteen which asked

about details of the experience. The form also

asked for the name of the employer and the

27 address of the institution employed. Thereafter,

there was another column asking for the post in

which they were employed and the period during

which the emoluments were received.

28. Apart from this, the justification offered for

defending the age relaxation is also available for

the grant of excess bonus marks. In fact, as is

clear from the background set out above, the

creation of the post of ‘Prabodhak’ and ‘Senior

Prabodhak’ was to get the advantage of the

benefits that the projects gave to the State. At the

same time, opportunity was given to all, with the

only difference being that by an executive

instruction additional marks were granted for

project experience. The executive guidelines only

supplemented the Rules and did not supplant

them.

29. Moreover, intrinsically from Rule 13(v) the validity

of which we have upheld, evidence is available to

28 show that the Rule recognized the experience

gathered from project work stood on a higher

pedestal because it was in tune with the nature of

the work of Prabodhak. Further, under Rule 25,

the Committee was to prepare a list of candidates

whom they consider suitable for appointment.

30. In Srinivas K. Gouda v. Karnataka Institute of

Medical Sciences and Others (2022) 1 SCC 49,

a notification was issued inviting applications for

the post of Junior Lab Technician. Eligibility and

requirements were prescribed. At the time of

selection, the Selection Committee decided that

out of the 15% marks for interview, 10% of the

marks were to be set apart for the length of work

experience and/or additional training in teaching

hospitals of the medical college, with special

preference to those who had worked in teaching

hospitals of Government/autonomous medical

colleges and the remaining 5% marks were to be

29 assigned to the personality of the candidates

based on viva voice. In the minutes, it was set out

as under:

“4. …. It was decided that in order to select the most suitable candidates, proportionate weightage based on the length of experience and/or additional training to the extent of 10 marks be given to those candidates who had work experience and/or additional training in medical college teaching hospitals and especially those who had worked in government/autonomous medical college teaching hospitals. It was agreed that the type of work in these institutions most closely resembled the working conditions at Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, Hubli and hence the candidates who had experience in such institutions would be the most suitable. It was also decided to set apart a maximum of 5 marks for the personality of the candidate and his/her presentation and performance….” (Emphasis supplied)

31. The appellant in that case was selected and the

selection had been set aside by the Division Bench

of the High Court. The appellant secured 9.5

marks in the experience category while the writ

petitioner who had challenged his appointment

had secured one (1) mark under the component

of experience. On appeal, the appellant contended

30 that the selection committee, an expert body, was

entitled to apportion marks, and that the

appellant had experience in

Government/Autonomous medical institutions.

The writ petitioner had contended that no

explanation was furnished for dividing the marks

and bifurcating the same. This Court while

allowing the appeal in para 19 held as under:

“19. It is in this background that we need to determine whether the marks allotted to the appellant in the category of experience and personality are arbitrary. The appellant at the time of submitting the application had a one year work experience in Bapuji Medical College, Devanagere (a private institution) and three years of work experience with the first respondent. On the other hand, the respondent at the time of the application, had six months’ experience of working under a doctor who was undertaking private practice. Not only did the appellant have more years of work experience, he had work experience in a governmental institution. Hence, the marks awarded to the third respondent and the appellant bore a nexus to the yardstick determined by the Selection Committee. It is not the case of the third respondent that the appellant was given more marks for experience despite having less work experience. On a comparison of the marks allotted to both the candidates with reference to the yardstick

31 determined by the Selection Committee, no mala fides could be imputed to the Selection Committee. Nor is there an obvious or glaring error or perversity. The Court does not sit in appeal over the decision of the Selection Committee.”

32. In the present case too, we find no glaring error or

perversity in the criterion adopted on the peculiar

facts of the present case. No mala fide could also

be attributed to the State and the Selection

Committee.

33. Satya Dev Bhagaur (supra) was a case wherein

the State of Rajasthan had issued a notification

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, Jhalawar Hospital and Medical

College Society, Samekit Rog Nirgrani Pariyojna or

State Institute of Health Family Welfare would be

entitled to bonus marks as per the experience

attained. It was provided that for one year of

32 experience, the bonus marks will be 10, for two

years of experience the bonus marks will be 20

and for three years of experience it will be 30. This

notification was challenged by certain persons

who had experience of working in NRHM Scheme

on contract basis in States other than Rajasthan.

They sought a direction to accept their experience

certificate so as to entitle them to obtain the

bonus marks. While the Single Judge allowed the

Writ Petitions, the Division Bench reversed the

same and the aggrieved Writ Petitioners were in

Appeal. Examining the question whether bonus

marks would be available to employees of NRHM

Scheme in other States, this Court while repelling

the contention held that in matters of policy,

Courts should be slow in interfering, unless the

policy is found to be palpably discriminatory and

arbitrary. It was further held that the court would

not interfere with the policy decision when the

33 State was in a position to point out that there was

an intelligible differentia in the application of the

policy and that such intelligible differentia had a

nexus with the object sought to be achieved. On

the facts of that case, the Court held as follows:

“20. It could thus clearly be seen that the Division Bench in Jagdish Prasad [Jagdish Prasad v. State of Rajasthan, 2016 SCC OnLine Raj 646] 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 non-joining of the same would result in non- renewal 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,

34 stand on a different pedestal.”

34. We find that the ratio laid down in the said

judgment is applicable to the facts of the present

case also to uphold the action of the State.

35. The judgment of this Court in Raj Kumar (supra)

cited by the learned counsel for the appellants is

clearly distinguishable. That case dealt with the

Rule which provided that any person who has

passed the SSC examination and is supposed to

be a rural candidate was to be given weightage by

the Public Service Commission by awarding 10%

marks in each subject for such a candidate. It was

also provided that the Viva Voce Board was to put

relevant questions to judge the suitability of the

candidate for working in rural areas and to test

whether or not they had sufficient knowledge of

rural problems. Rural candidate was defined to

mean a candidate who comes from the rural area

and who has passed SSC examination which is

35 held from a village or a town having only a ‘C’ type

Municipality. The purported object of the Rule

was to take officers who had full knowledge of

rural life, its problems, aptitudes and working of

the people in villages. This Court held that the

Rule did not fulfil or carry out the object sought

to be achieved since as the Rules stood any

person who may not have lived in a village at all

can appear for SSC Examination from a village

and yet become eligible for selection. The Court

found that there was no nexus between the

classification and the object sought to be

achieved. The Court also faulted the weightage

marks given by holding that since in the viva voce

questions to judge the suitability of the candidate

for working in rural areas were anyway being put,

there was absolutely no occasion for giving

weightage which would convert demerit into merit

and merit into demerit. On the facts of that case,

36 the Court found the rule of weightage to be

manifestly unreasonable and wholly arbitrary.

The said case has no application to the facts of

the present case.

36. Equally the judgment in Kailash Chand

Sharma vs State of Rajasthan & Ors., (2002)

6 SCC 562 has also no application. This Court in

that case held that the award of bonus marks to

the residents of the district and residents of the

rural areas of the district amounts to

impermissible discrimination. The Court found

that there was no rational basis for such

preferential treatment on the material placed

before the Court. The Court found that the

ostensible reasons advanced by the State were

non-existent or irrelevant, having no nexus with

the object sought to be achieved. It also found that

no criteria was set out for determining as to

residents in rural areas. The Court in Kailash

37 Chand Sharma (supra) followed the judgment in

Raj Kumar (Supra).

37. The judgment in Official Liquidator vs.

Dayanand & Ors. (2008) 10 SCC 1 cited by the

appellants has no connection at all with the

issues raised in the present case. Yet another case

cited by the appellants is Bedanga Talukdar

(supra). The appellants relied on the said

judgment to contend that there could be no

relaxation in the terms and conditions contained

in the advertisement and even if there was power

of relaxation the same will have to be specifically

indicated in the advertisement. The case is wholly

inapplicable. In this case, before the

advertisement was issued, the guidelines setting

out various aspects including the aspect of bonus

marks were issued and, as discussed earlier, no

infirmity can be found with the same. 38

38. Similarly, the judgment in State of Rajasthan

vs. Archana (2017) 11 SCC 421 and the

judgment in Civil Appeal 12335 of 2016 dated

18.01.2022 in Manoj Kumar Acharya vs.

State of Rajasthan & Ors., cited by the State

have no application to the facts of the present

case.

39. The argument that the guideline was not in public

domain was not an argument canvassed either

before the learned Single Judge or before the

Division Bench. In any event, the contention does

not impress us on the facts of the present case.

The guideline setting out the selection process

was issued before the advertisement and it was

applied uniformly and across the board to all the

applicants. No prejudice has been caused to the

applicants even assuming that the guideline was

not in the public domain. It was a procedure

adopted by the recruiting Authority and endorsed

39 by the Selection Committee. The appellants have

had the opportunity to assail the validity of the

prescription of the award of bonus marks and as

such have had a fora to ventilate their grievance.

They have failed in the process. Hence, we cannot

jettison the guideline on the alleged ground that

it was not in public domain. Equally, since the

guidelines of 27.05.2008 preceded the

advertisement of 31.05.2008, there is no merit in

the argument feebly advanced that the rules of the

game had been changed after the match had

begun.

40. On the special facts of this case, considering the

peculiarity that obtained in the State of

Rajasthan with regard to absentee teachers and

drop out of students and the introduction of the

projects with para legals to address the

situation, we find no illegality in the prescription

of additional marks for those applicants who

40 had experience of working in projects, while

recruiting Prabhodhaks. The statutory rules in

Rule 13(v) recognize that project employed

applicants were a class apart with the idea being

that their experience should not be wasted. In

view of the above, we find no illegality in the

award of bonus marks.

41. In view of the above, we find no merit in the

appeals and all the appeals are dismissed with

no order as to costs. All applications for

impleadment and intervention are closed.

………........................J. [SURYA KANT]

……….........................J. [K. V. VISWANATHAN] New Delhi;

July 08, 2024.

41