Nursing Officer Bonus Marks: Raj HC Orders Expert Committee

Equivalence of Scheme Experience for Nursing Officer Bonus Marks Is for Experts to Decide: Rajasthan High Court

Published: 30 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Rajasthan High Court disposed of 42 writ petitions by candidates in the Nursing Officer Recruitment 2023 who sought bonus marks for experience in State health schemes (paras 1, 3, 27). Whether their work equals a Nursing Officer's duties is a technical question for experts, not the writ court (paras 15-19), so it directed an eight-member expert committee to examine each claim and report within six weeks, with the Government to decide within four weeks after that (paras 21-22).

Key holdings

Whether scheme work equals a Nursing Officer's duties for bonus marks is a technical and factual question for experts, not for the writ court (paras 15-18).

Following Warade, the Court declined to sit as an expert or to decide equivalence itself (paras 19-20).

An eight-member committee must examine each petitioner's documents and actual duties, hear them and report within six weeks; the Government then decides within four weeks (paras 21-22).

Petitioners within the expert opinion are to be considered for appointment if otherwise eligible; the others may file fresh petitions (paras 23-24).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

Forty-two writ petitions, heard together, sought bonus marks for experience and inclusion in the final merit list of 6 December 2024 for appointment as Nursing Officers (paras 1-3). The advertisement of 5 May 2023 allowed bonus marks for experience in State schemes (para 4). Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 provides bonus marks for similar work under listed schemes such as the National Rural Health Mission (para 5), and a departmental circular fixed 10 to 30 marks by years of experience (paras 6-8). The petitioners said their certified experience matched a Nursing Officer's work; the State said working in a scheme was not enough without performing those duties (paras 9-10).

Court's Findings

The Court noted that Rule 19 entitles candidates who worked in any listed scheme to bonus marks by years of experience, and that the State opposed the claims on the ‘technical count’ that the petitioners had not performed a Nursing Officer's duties (para 12), pointing to the job responsibilities prescribed for Nurse Grade-I and II (para 13). It framed the core question as whether the petitioners' work under the various schemes can be treated as equivalent to a Nursing Officer's work for bonus marks (para 15). That, the Court held, is a technical and factual question needing domain knowledge in nursing and health administration; it is not an expert able to assess each petitioner's duties (paras 16-17). Under Article 226 it cannot undertake a comparative assessment of job profiles, work charts and duties of different categories of nursing staff, a task for the Health Department and subject experts (para 18). Following Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Sandeep Shriram Warade, under which a court does not sit as an expert and questions of equivalence fall outside judicial review (para 19), it chose an expert committee to avoid injustice to either side (para 20).

Legal Principle

Whether scheme work equals a Nursing Officer's duties for recruitment bonus marks is a technical and factual question for subject experts. Under Article 226 a High Court will not compare job profiles itself; it may direct an expert committee to examine each claim and leave the decision to the Government (paras 15-22).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

Candidates refused bonus marks for work under State health schemes in the Nursing Officer Recruitment 2023 now have their claims tested by experts, not the writ court. The committee will compare each petitioner's job description, experience certificates, appointment letters and actual duties with those prescribed for Nursing Officers, and must hear them or receive their representations (para 21), so the record placed before it will decide the claim. Interim orders continue for two months or till the report (para 25), and anyone whose experience falls outside the expert opinion may file a fresh petition (para 24). In the same vein, the Supreme Court in Santosh B. Naik held that courts cannot read equivalence into a qualification prescribed by recruitment rules.

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.

Precedents Relied Upon

The Maharashtra Public Service Commission through its Secretary v. Sandeep Shriram Warade and Others 2019 (6) SCC 362
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 19
The Court relied on it for the principle that a court should not sit as an expert over the opinion of experts and that, where specialised knowledge is required, the matter should be left to the experts, quoting two paragraphs of that judgment: the employer decides essential and desirable qualifications, questions of equivalence fall outside the domain of judicial review, and the court cannot sit in the chair of the appointing authority (para 19). On that basis it referred the equivalence question to an expert committee (paras 20-21).