"Internship Cannot Be Termed as Employment": Rajasthan High Court Dismisses GNM Students' Plea for COVID-19 Bonus Marks, Citing Mandatory Academic Nature of Training
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur, Single Bench of Justice Arun Monga dismissed a writ petition filed by 57 petitioners who sought directions for the grant of bonus marks for their internship services rendered during the COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioners requested parity with Covid Health Assistants (C.H.A.) in the award of bonus marks under the recruitment process initiated via an advertisement dated 05.05.2023 for the post of Nursing Officer.
The petitioners in the writ petition were individuals who were pursuing the General Nursing and Midwifery (GNM) diploma course at various institutions in Rajasthan. During the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a substantial shortage of medical personnel across the state. In response, authorities deployed not only CHAs but also GNM students who were nearing the completion of their academic course and internship. The petitioners stated that they actively participated in medical services and were engaged in tasks such as door-to-door surveys, distribution of medicines, basic patient care, and assisting qualified medical staff.
The petitioners claimed that their services were provided during a time of critical health crisis and on the direction of district authorities and medical officers. They relied upon circulars and communications issued during the pandemic that acknowledged the contributions of health trainees and volunteers. The main grievance raised by the petitioners pertained to their exclusion from the list of beneficiaries who were granted 15 bonus marks for services rendered during the COVID-19 period as per the government order dated 25.04.2023.
According to the petitioners, the Government of Rajasthan had earlier issued an advertisement dated 16.11.2022 for the recruitment of Nursing Officers. However, the application process required submission of experience certificates in a prescribed format. Since the petitioners did not receive such certificates, they were unable to upload them with their applications, rendering them ineligible for consideration under the bonus marks scheme.
The petitioners cited the decision in SBCWP No. 18156/2022 (Ritesh Gochar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), where a coordinate bench of the Jaipur Bench had directed the respondents to address issues related to the format and issuance of experience certificates for candidates who had rendered Covid services.
Following that judgment, the respondents reviewed their criteria and issued a fresh advertisement dated 05.05.2023. Under the revised framework, bonus marks were to be awarded to candidates who provided medical and paramedical services between 22.03.2020 and 13.02.2022. The Office Order dated 25.04.2023 detailed eligibility criteria and explicitly provided 15 bonus marks for two years of service.
Despite their claimed involvement during this period, the petitioners were excluded from receiving bonus marks. The respondents asserted that only CHAs and other personnel formally engaged under contractual or temporary employment were eligible. The petitioners, on the other hand, argued that they performed equivalent duties and their exclusion was arbitrary and discriminatory.
The respondents contended that the role of CHA required a completed GNM qualification and registration with the Rajasthan Nursing Council. At the time of their services, the petitioners were students and had not completed their diploma. Therefore, they did not satisfy the statutory requirement for the CHA designation. Moreover, the respondents maintained that the bonus marks policy was explicitly limited to individuals formally engaged as staff members, either contractually or temporarily.
Additionally, the respondents referred to Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1965, which grants the State Government exclusive authority to prescribe eligibility criteria for awarding bonus marks. The State’s stance was that the petitioners’ claim did not fall within the criteria set under this Rule. In the absence of any challenge to the constitutional validity of Rule 19, the State contended that the petitioners' writ petition was not legally maintainable.
The Court considered the materials on record and the submissions made by both parties. Justice Arun Monga recorded the petitioners' own admission that they had rendered services during their internship period while pursuing the GNM course. The Court noted:
"The conceded position as per the case pleaded in affirmative by the petitioners is that they are seeking benefit of their having interned during the Covid period in the health sector while they were pursuing their diploma in GNM."
The Court posed a direct question to the counsel for the petitioners about whether completion of the internship was a necessary precondition for the award of the GNM diploma. Upon receiving confirmation that the internship was mandatory, the Court held:
"It thus emerges that internship is an integral part of the academic curriculum for the diploma in question and the same cannot therefore be termed as an employment but rather is continuation of the studenthood."
The Court concluded that the petitioners were not engaged as employees but were fulfilling an academic requirement. As such, their claim for bonus marks could not be equated with those formally appointed under government schemes or employment contracts. The Court observed:
"On that ground alone petitioners are not entitled to seek benefit of any bonus marks claiming that they were under employment and/or had worked as health workers, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed."
The Court also considered precedents cited during the hearing. Particular reliance was placed on the judgment dated 23.01.2023 in Pramila & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14794/2022, wherein a similar claim for bonus marks by GNM students was dismissed. Justice Arun Monga recorded:
"I am in respectful agreement with a view taken by my learned brother in the aforesaid judgment. The same is not being reproduced for sake of brevity."
The Court further examined the scope of Rule 19 of the 1965 Rules. It stated that this rule clearly provides the State Government with discretion to decide which categories of individuals would be entitled to receive bonus marks and under what conditions. The Bench did not find any legal infirmity in the respondents' decision to limit bonus marks to those formally engaged under a recognized employment scheme.
The Court observed that no challenge had been raised to the validity of Rule 19 or the Office Order dated 25.04.2023, which laid out the eligibility criteria. The Court noted that in the absence of such a challenge, it could not interfere in a policy decision made by the executive branch within the bounds of legal authority.
The Court also noted that the issuance of experience certificates for services rendered during the pandemic was governed by specific administrative directions and guidelines. These guidelines were applied to individuals falling within recognized service categories and the petitioners, as students, did not fall within such categories.
Having considered all the arguments and legal provisions, the Court dismissed the writ petition in its entirety.
"Dismissed accordingly. Pending application, if any, stand disposed of."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Hanuman Singh Choudhary
For the Respondents: Ms. Rakhi Choudhary
Case Title: Pritika Gahlot & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: RJ-JD:11925
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8072/2023
Bench: Justice Arun Monga
[Read/Download order]
