ORDER
Lakshmanan, C.J.
(1) Heard counsel for the parlies at length.
(2). These Special Appeals have been filed against the order dated 26.2.2001,
passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1646/2000 and other connected cases. Since the factual aspect and law involved in all the cases was common, therefore, the learned Single Judge disposed of all the writ petitions by a common order.
(3). The question raised in these cases is whether it is in order to give five bonus marks to the candidates, who are resident of rural area of a particulars district and ten bonus marks to the candidates, who are resident of particular districl for which posts are advertised. In these cases merit list was prepared giving the aforesaid bonus marks to the candidates eligibfe for those bonus marks and some of the candidates were also given appointment on the basis of the merit list prepared.
(4). The susiainability of the above provisions in the State Circular was questioned in the above batch of writ petitions.
(5). The learned Single Judge, by its common order disposed of all the writ petitions after following a Full Bench Judgment of this Court, reported in Deepak Kurnar Suthar and another vs. State of Rajas than and others (1), wherein this position has been clarified by the Hon’ble Judges of the Full Bench that the judgment rendered in Deepak Kumar Suthar’s case shall apply to all the appointments in full force to all Departments of the Slate and that any appointment made of any candidate by the Gramin Vikas & Panchayati Raj Department or by Panchayat Samitis after 21st of October, 1999, on the basis of the merit list prepared awarding bonus marks to the candidates being original residents of rural area of that district for which the advertisement is issued would not be valid if candidates do not stand in the merit list after deducting the marks awarded to them on the basis of their being original residents of the district or rural area of that district.
(6). The learned Single Judge has also referred to other Full Bench Judgments in the case of, namely; Kailash Chand Sharma vs. The Stale of Rajasihan and others (2). The learned Single Judge, in the concluding part of its judgment, has issued certain directions, as under:-
“Thus, the merit list, prepared or in existence after 21.10.1999 in pursuance to the advertisement issued in the year 1998 for the post of Teachers in Primary Schools of Panchayat Samitis under Gramin Vikas & Panchayat Raj Department, State of Rajasthan, awarding bonus marks to the candidates on the basis of place of resident of the candidates of a particular District or rural area of that District for which the advertisement is issued, is quashed. The respondents i.e. Secondary and Director of Gramin Vikas & Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, are directed to issue necessary orders to ensure that fresh merit lists of the candidates, who have not been given appointment on or before 21st of October, 1999 (the date when the judgment.of the Full Bench of this Court in Deepak Kumar Sulhar’s case was delivered), of the Zila Parishads in the State of Rajasthan, are prepared as if the provisions, awarding bonus marks on the basis of place of residence of the candidates of a particular District or rural area of that District for which the advertisement is issued, is not in existence in the Circular dated 10.6.1998. While preparing the fresh merit lists the candidates shall not be given weightage/advantage or awarded ten of five bonus marks on the basis of their being original residents of particular District or rural area of that District for which the advertisement was issued.
On preparation of new merit lists, if it is found that the appointment orders have been issued to the candidates after 21.10.1999, who secured less marks than other candidates but have been placed above in the old merit list, as they have been awarded additional ten and five bonus marks on the basis of their being original residents of particular District or residents of rural area of that District for which advertisement was issued, necessary orders in regard to their appointments shall be passed after giving them seven days show cause notice. After preparation of new merit lists of candidates, all the available vacancies shall be filled in slrictly in accordance with the new merit list prepared of the candidates, who have not been given appointment prior to 21st of October, 1999. The respondents i.e. Secretary and Director, Gramin Vikas & Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur shall complete this entire exercise within a period of one and a half months from today.”
(7). It is not is dispute that the question raised for consideration before this Court is already covered by two Full Bench Judgments of this Court and also by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in (2000) 4 SCC 200 (3), in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court, considering the admission to B.Ed. Course on the basis of District Wise distribution of seats, held that the District Wise distribution of seats for the purpose of admission to R.Ed. Course without indicating any material to show that the nexus between such distribution and the objection sought to be achieved, it would be violalive of Article 14 of the Constitution. However, the Supreme Courl clarified that since the dispute had arisen five years long ago, the only relief that could be granted was that if any further steps are taken by the respondents for fresh admission to B.Ed. Course, the candidates shall also be given an opportunity to seek admission. In the said judgment, the Supreme Court has referred to two earlier judgments of the Supreme Court, reported in AIR 1971 (SC) 2303 (4) and AIR 1968 (SC) 1012 (5).
(8). In the case of Minor P. Rajendran vs. State of Madras, the question as to whether there could be a district wise distribution of seats was considered by the Supreme Court and ii was held that for the purpose of admission to the first year integrated MBBS course, the district wise distribution of seats was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
(9). The above decision was followed in Minor Peeriakaruppan vs. State of T.N., in which it was laid as under:-
“Before a classification can be justified, it must be based on an objective criteria and further it must have reasonable nexus with the object intended to be achieved. The object intended to be achieved in the present case is to select the best candidates for being admitted to Medical Colleges. That object cannot be satisfactorily achieved by the method adopted. The complaint of the pelitioners is that unitwise distribution of scats is but a different manifestation of the district wise distribution sough tin 1967-68 has some force though on the material on record we will not be justified in saying that the unit wise distribution was done for the collateral purposes. Suffice is to say that the unit wise distribution of seals is violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. The fact that an applicant is free to apply to anyone unit does not take the scheme out side the mischief of Articles 14 and 15. it may be remembered that the students were advised as far as possible to apply to the unit nearest to their place of residence.”
(10). The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Deepak Kumar Suthar (supra), has also referred to various other judgments of Supreme Court. Another Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Kailash Chand Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan and olher connected cases has followed the Reference in Writ Petition No. 1917/1995 (Deepak Kumar Suthar and another vs. State of Rajasthan and others) and disposed of the reference on the basis of the order of reference in writ petition No. 1917/1995.
(11). The Full Bench of this Couri in the case of Deepak Kumar Suthar, while answering the reference has held as under:-
“In view of the above, we answer the reference holding that any kind of weightage/advantage in public employment in any State Service is not permissible on the ground of place of birth or resident and the Clause in the Circular providing for bonus marks on the ground of being resident of the same district, for which the posts are advertised, or on the ground of being a resident of urban area or rural area, is void ab initio.
Instead of sending the matter to the appropriate bench, we think it proper to dispose of this petition with a direction that no relief can be granted to the petitioners as they could not succeed to get the place in the merit list even by gelling 10 bonus marks being residents of urban area, for which they are certainly not entitled. Moreso, the petitioners have not impleaded any person from the select list, not even the last selected candidate. Thus, no relief can be granted to them inspite of the fact that the appointments made in conformity of the impugned Circular have not been in consonance with law. However, we clarify that any appointment made earlier shall not be affected by this judgment and it would have prospective application.”
(12). In view of the above categorical order on the reference by the Full Bench, the above appeals filed by the appellants are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, we dismiss all the above appeals.
(13). It is argued by Mrs. Naina Saraf, counsel for the appellants that some other Judges have taken conflicting view, other than the view taken by the Full Bench of this Court in the above referred cases. If so, the appellants are always at liberty to move this court for any further clarification.
(14). The learned Judge, while disposing of the writ petitions, directed the department to comply with the directions issued in paragraph 8 of its judgment, within one and half months from 26.2.2001. Since the matter is pending in this Court, it is stated that the appellant could not comply with the directions of this Court passed by the learned Single Judge in the above cases in stipulated period, we extend the time by two months finally from today for compliance of the judgment in its letter and spirit.