Rajasthan High Court Upholds Recruitment Rules, Denies Bonus Marks to COVID Health Assistant
Court affirms that only competent authority's assessment of experience equivalence holds validity in Pharmacist recruitment process
Jaipur, September 20, 2025 - The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, has dismissed the writ petition filed by Divya Kumar seeking 15 bonus marks for experience in the recruitment process for the post of Pharmacist. The court ruled that the experience certificate issued by a non-competent authority cannot be considered valid for awarding bonus marks, affirming the strict adherence to recruitment rules for equivalence of experience.
In the case of Divya Kumar v. State of Rajasthan and others, the petitioner claimed that his services as a COVID Health Assistant involved duties similar to those of a Pharmacist, entitling him to bonus marks. However, the certificate supporting his claim was issued by the Medical Officer Incharge rather than the Chief Medical & Health Officer (CMHO), the designated competent authority.
Justice Anand Sharma underscored that the CMHO, Bharatpur, in the official certificate, had clearly stated that Kumar’s work as a COVID Health Assistant did not involve duties similar to that of a Pharmacist, thus negating his claim. The court emphasized that the Pharmacist role involves statutory responsibilities that a COVID Health Assistant's auxiliary duties do not match.
The judgment reiterated the position held in previous Supreme Court rulings, including Sajid Khan v. L. Rahmathullah and Union of India v. Uzair Imran, that judicial review cannot extend to rewriting eligibility criteria or substituting administrative assessment of equivalence of qualifications and experience.
Highlighting the distinct qualifications required for a Pharmacist, the court rejected Kumar's argument that drug distribution during the pandemic amounted to similar work. It noted that a Pharmacist is a registered professional under the Pharmacy Act, 1948, responsible for drug inventory management and patient counseling, unlike the temporary support role of a COVID Health Assistant.
The court concluded that bonus marks are a policy benefit subject to recruitment rules, and judicial interpretation cannot enlarge the scope of eligibility. Therefore, the strict adherence to the rules by the respondents in denying bonus marks was deemed valid and not arbitrary.
The dismissal of the writ petition underscores the court’s commitment to upholding recruitment criteria set forth by competent authorities, ensuring the integrity and fairness of the recruitment process.
Bottom Line:
Recruitment Rules - Bonus marks for experience - Experience certificate issued by a non-competent authority cannot be considered valid for awarding bonus marks - Equivalence of experience must strictly adhere to recruitment rules - Judicial review cannot extend to rewriting eligibility criteria or substituting administrative assessment of equivalence.
Statutory provision(s): Pharmacy Act, 1948, Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Divya Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, (Rajasthan)(Jaipur Bench) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2782216
