Job Of Vaccinators Not Of "Similar Nature" As Nurses: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court was considering a Writ Petition wherein the Candidates only on account of having experience on the post of Vexinator, were claiming bonus marks for recruitment on the post of Nurse Grade-II.

Update: 2025-10-03 06:45 GMT

Justice Anand Sharma, Rajasthan High Court 

The Rajasthan High Court has held that the job of vaccinators is not of similar nature as that of nurses and they perform duties and have different responsibilities and nature of work.

The Court was considering a Writ Petition wherein the Candidates only on account of having experience on the post of "Vexinator", were claiming bonus marks for recruitment on the post of Nurse Grade-II.

The bench of Justice Anand Sharma observed, "....In the instant case, the petitioner No.5 has admittedly worked on another post of Vexinator which is altogether different post having different job responsibilities and nature of work. Therefore, under these circumstances, the petitioner No.5 was not entitled for claiming bonus marks only on account of experience acquired by them on the post of Vexinator..."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Vijay Laxmi Gauttam while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Prakhar Jain.

Facts of the Case

An advertisement was issued by the Director of Medical & Health Service Rajasthan whereby Applications were invited from all eligible persons against the vacancies of Nurse Grade-II, Public Health Nurse and Women Health Worker. The Petitioners being eligible submitted Application forms for participating in the recruitment process of Nurse Grade-II. It was further stated that as per criteria mentioned in the advertisement, selection was to be made on the basis of merit which was to be assessed on the basis of 70 % marks obtained by the respective candidate in the professional qualification as prescribed, after adding the bonus marks (maximum 30) to be granted on the basis of experience acquired by the candidates for carrying out similar work for which recruitment was being done.

Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that one of the Candidate possesses one experience certificate issued by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Sawai Madhopur certifying that they had worked on the post of Vexinator in NRHM Scheme for total period of two years and nine day and therefore deserving of the bonus marks.

On the other hand, Counsel for the Respondent stated that the criteria for granting bonus marks has been wrongly interpreted by the Petitioners as the bonus marks were required to be given for conducting similar work as required for the advertised post. It was further emphasised that post of Vexinator and post of Nurse Grade-II are altogether different posts under the Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965  and their job responsibilities are also altogether different. It was averred that candidates only on account of having experience on the post of Vexinator, cannot claim bonus marks for recruitment on the post of Nurse Grade-II.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset noted that although, there was provision for granting bonus marks for possessing experience of working in any of the project/scheme of State Government, yet such criteria for granting bonus marks is not unlimited and is confined only in respect of work, which is of 'similar nature' to the work required to be conducted for the advertised post.

"In the instant case, where the petitioners have not rendered 'similar nature' of work to that of the post of Nurse Grade- II, no benefit can be derived by the petitioners from the aforesaid judgment of Upama Pareek (supra). Even otherwise, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court has extremely limited jurisdiction and cannot carry out work of equivalence with regard to similarity of work rendered for different posts and no material whatsoever has been placed on record by the petitioners to show that job responsibilities of Nurse Grade-II and that of Vexinator are similar", the Court observed.

The Petition was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Surendra Kumar Gupta v. State of Rajasthan (2025:RJ-JP:38373)

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate Vijay Laxmi Gauttam, Advocate Anuk Ram Singh

Respondent- Advocate Prakhar Jain

Click here to read/ download Order













Tags:    

Similar News