Introduction:

In the case of Pukhraj Purohit & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 59, the Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court rejected a plea by nursing staff who sought bonus marks for experience in the recruitment process, despite being appointed in 2016 based on a revised recruitment result. The petitioners argued that their colleagues who were appointed in 2008 were granted such benefits and that they, too, should receive the same as their appointment was made effective from the same date. Justice Arun Monga, however, dismissed their plea, stating that granting such retrospective benefits without actual work experience would create an administrative mess and open a floodgate of challenges to past recruitment decisions. The Court emphasised that once a selection process is completed, it cannot be reopened retrospectively, as the principle of finality in recruitment applies. The ruling relied on the precedent set in Manisha Jangir v. State of Rajasthan, where it was held that candidates who were appointed based on a revised recruitment process could not claim parity with those selected in the original process. The Court underscored that the doctrine of legitimate expectation does not apply here as no clear assurance or policy was promising retroactive benefits. The decision reaffirmed that equal treatment applies only among equals and that candidates appointed under different circumstances cannot claim identical benefits.

Arguments:

The petitioners, represented by their legal counsel, contended that their recruitment was a result of a revised selection process that rectified an earlier error in the 2007 recruitment for the post of General Nursing and Midwifery. They argued that since their appointment letters made their service effective from 2008, they should be granted bonus marks for experience, just as their colleagues who were appointed in 2008 received. The petitioners claimed that they were available for service throughout the period but were wrongfully kept out due to no fault of their own. They maintained that they successfully challenged the 2007 selection process and were vindicated as meritorious candidates who should have been selected at the outset. Their legal counsel emphasised that denying them the same benefits as those appointed in 2008 would be arbitrary and unjust. Additionally, the petitioners invoked the principle of legitimate expectation, arguing that they had a reasonable expectation of being treated on par with their colleagues who were awarded experience-based bonus marks in subsequent recruitments. The core of their claim rested on the assertion that since they were willing and eligible to work but were deprived of employment due to an administrative error, they should not be penalised for a mistake that was beyond their control.

The respondents, represented by the State’s legal counsel, strongly opposed the petitioners’ claims. They argued that the petitioners were not similarly placed to those appointed in 2008, as their recruitment was based on a revised selection process conducted in 2016. The State maintained that the principle of finality in recruitment applied and that once a selection process is completed, it cannot be reopened retrospectively to grant additional benefits. The respondents highlighted that the revised recruitment result never promised retroactive benefits and that awarding bonus marks to candidates who had not physically worked during the period in question would set a dangerous precedent. They pointed out that recruitment decisions must be based on actual service rendered, and allowing retrospective claims would lead to administrative chaos by opening the floodgates for endless litigation over past recruitment exercises. Furthermore, the State argued that the doctrine of legitimate expectation only applies when there is a clear government assurance or policy creating a reasonable expectation of a benefit, which was not the case here. The respondents also emphasised that equal treatment applies only among equals, and since the petitioners entered service under different circumstances than the 2008 appointees, they could not claim identical benefits.

Judgement:

After hearing the arguments from both sides, the Rajasthan High Court dismissed the petition, reaffirming that a completed recruitment process cannot be challenged retrospectively and that the principle of finality in recruitment must be upheld. Justice Arun Monga emphasised that granting bonus marks to candidates who did not physically work during the relevant period would set an unacceptable precedent, leading to endless challenges to past recruitment decisions. The Court ruled that the petitioners were not similarly placed to the 2008 appointees and thus could not claim equal treatment. It observed that “equal treatment applies among equals” and that candidates selected under different circumstances cannot demand identical benefits. The Court also relied on the precedent set in Manisha Jangir v. State of Rajasthan, where it was held that candidates selected only in a revised recruitment process could not claim the same benefits as those selected in the original process. Additionally, the Court rejected the petitioners’ argument based on legitimate expectation, noting that such a claim applies only when a clear government assurance or policy creates an expectation of a benefit, which was absent in this case. The Court concluded that claims of notional engagement at work due to mere availability, without actual deployment, do not create an automatic right to future recruitment benefits. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed, reinforcing the legal principle that recruitment decisions must be based on actual service rendered and that past selections cannot be reopened arbitrarily.