The courts would be slow in interfering in the policy matters, unless the policy is found to be clearly discriminatory and arbitrary

In the matter of Satya Dev Bhagaur & ors. v State of Rajasthan and ors. [Civil Appeal No. 1422 of 2022] decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 17.02.2022.

FACTS

The Respondent (State of Rajasthan) issued a notification on 30.05.2018 providing that candidates who have worked under the Government of Rajasthan, 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 (SIHFW) would be entitled to bonus marks as per the experience. The advertisement also provided that only such candidates who have experience certificate from the competent authority as mentioned in the advertisement would be entitled to the bonus marks.

The Appellants (Satya Dev Bhagaur and ors) herein had an 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 Respondent to accept the experience certificate of the Appellants which was issued by the NRHM authorities of the different states.

The Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court vide order dated 28.08.2018, allowed the said writ petitions and directed the Respondent to grant bonus marks to the Appellants. The said order was challenged by the Respondent before the Division Bench. The Division Bench allowed the appeal by stating that the intention of the Respondent was to confine the benefit of award of bonus marks to those employed in the scheme within the State of Rajasthan and not in other states. Hence, the present Appeal by the Appellants.

OBSERVATIONS

The Hon’ble Supreme Court while referring to Sher Singh and ors. v UOI [(1995) 6 SCC 515] and Krishnan Kakkanth v Government of Kerala and ors. [(1997) 9 SCC 495] observed that it is a trite law that the courts would be slow in interfering in the policy matters, unless the policy is found to be clearly discriminatory and arbitrary.

It was further held that the court would not interfere 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.

The Bench while referring to Jagdish Prasad and ors v State of Rajasthan and ors. (Civil Writ Petition No. 12942/2015) further held the experienced candidates of other states cannot be compared with the candidates working in the State of Rajasthan, as every state has its own problems and issues and person trained to meet such circumstances, stand on a different pedestal. Therefore, the persons having special knowledge in working in the State of Rajasthan form a class different that the persons not having such experience of working in the state.

The Bench was in complete agreement of the Division Bench of the High Court and further noted that the policy of the Respondent to restrict the benefits of bonus marks only to such employees who have worked under different organizations in the State of Rajasthan and to employees cannot be said to be arbitrary. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.