The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed Haryana authorities to award experience marks to candidates who worked as Senior Treatment Supervisors (STS) and Para Medical Workers (PMW) under the National Health Mission (NHM), holding that denial of such marks was arbitrary and discriminatory.
Court Order on NHM Experience Marks
Justice Sandeep Moudgil passed the order while allowing a bunch of petitions challenging the denial of experience marks in recruitment conducted pursuant to Advertisement No. 1 of 2015 for the post of Multi-Purpose Health Worker (Male) (MPHW). The petitions were filed by candidates who participated in the recruitment process but were not selected due to the denial of experience marks.
The petitioners contended that despite possessing experience under various NHM programmes and producing experience certificates before the Haryana Staff Selection Commission, they were not granted marks earmarked for experience under the selection criteria. According to them, grant of the experience marks would have brought them within the zone of selection in their respective categories.
State's Argument Rejected
The respondents argued that experience marks were admissible only for service rendered in the “same capacity” under RCH/NRHM/NHM projects or the Health Department, under the selection criteria dated December 22, 2016. They maintained that the petitioners had worked as Senior Treatment Supervisors, DR-TB/HIV Coordinators, TBHVs and Para Medical Workers, and not as MPHW (Male). “Since neither of them had worked on the post of MPHW (Male), their experience could not be treated as service rendered in the ‘same capacity’ within the meaning of the selection criteria. The Commission rightly declined to award any experience marks to the petitioners and no arbitrariness or illegality can be attributed to the impugned result,” it was added.
The Court, however, rejected this interpretation. Justice Moudgil observed that candidates possessing experience as Senior Treatment Supervisors had been granted the benefit of experience marks in connected matters arising out of the same recruitment process. “Once the respondents themselves have treated experience acquired as Senior Treatment Supervisor to be valid for grant of experience marks in respect of other candidates participating in the same recruitment process, there exists no rational basis to deny identical treatment to the present petitioners,” the Court held.
Clarifications from Health Department
The Court noted that in a clarification dated August 12, 2024, the Health Department had stated that experience gained as STS under NHM ought to be considered for the post of MPHW (Male). Subsequent clarifications dated November 29, 2024, and January 31, 2025, acknowledged that the duties attached to the posts of STS and PMW were substantially similar to those discharged by MPHW (Male). Observing that the respondents themselves had acknowledged similarity in duties and functions, the Court said: “Once the respondents themselves admit similarity in duties and functions, insistence upon rigid nomenclature loses all significance.”
Justice Moudgil added that the qualification prescribed for the post of STS was higher than that prescribed for MPHW (Male), and the duties and responsibilities of both posts were identical, as reflected in a communication issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on June 7, 2021. The Court also rejected the respondents’ contention that STS and PMW posts were contractual whereas MPHW (Male) was part of the regular cadre, noting that the selection criteria expressly contemplated experience acquired under RCH/NRHM/NHM projects.
Relief and Directions
Holding that denial of experience marks to the petitioners despite grant of similar benefit to identically situated candidates and despite categorical clarifications regarding similarity of duties was “arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India”, the Court allowed the petitions. The Court set aside the result dated June 5, 2019, to the limited extent of non-consideration of the petitioners for grant of experience marks and directed the respondents to award experience marks after taking into account their experience as Senior Treatment Supervisors and Para Medical Workers under NHM.
The respondents were then directed to rework the petitioners’ merit position. “In the event the petitioners fall within the zone of selection upon such recalculation, consequential benefits including appointment shall follow. The exercise be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order,” Justice Moudgil ruled.
