[2025:RJ-JP:2854-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 113/2024 1. Dr. Sudhanshu Sharma S/o Shri Chetan Prakash Sharma, Aged About 26 Years, R/o 200Ft., Manna Ka Road, Alwar (Raj.). 2. Dr. Swati Yadav D/o Shri S. S. Yadav, Aged About 30 Years, R/o 16, Apna Ghar Shalimar, Tijara Road, Alwar. 3. Dr. Lakshya Chharang S/o Shri Pukhraj Chharang, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Vpo Dhandhlawasuda, Tehsil, Merta City, District Nagaur (Raj.). 4. Dr. Vipul Thalor S/o Shri Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Khudi, Post Mandela Bara, Tehsil Fatehpur Shekhawati, District Sikar (Raj.) ----Appellants Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health ,government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Director, (Public Health), Directorate, Medical And Health Services, Jaipur. 3. Rajasthan University Of Health Sciences, Through Its Registrar, Sector 18, Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ashwinee Kumar Jaiman For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 21/01/2025 This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 11.10.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, the writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioners - [2025:RJ-JP:2854-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-113/2024] appellants herein along with other similarly situated persons for grant of bonus marks was dismissed. We have perused the order dated 11.10.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petitions filed on behalf of the petitioners and other similarly situated persons observed as under:- "11. 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 (here in after 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. 12. In view of aforesaid discussions, this Court while exercising its powers [2025:RJ-JP:2854-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-113/2024] 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." We have gone through the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge giving reasons while dismissing the writ petitions filed on behalf of the petitioners along with other similarly situated persons. We have also considered that there is no provision for grant of bonus marks to the petitioners in any Act/Rule/Circular of the Department. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference by this Court in the present appeal. Hence, the present appeal stands dismissed. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Upendra Pratap Singh /87