(1.)Leave to appeal granted. Consequently, the appeals are taken on file and being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.)The selections held and the consequential appointments made to the posts of primary school teachers by the -ila Parishads of various districts in the State of Rajasthan during the year 1998-1999 have given rise to these appeals. The Full Bench judgment of Rajasthan High Court dated 18-11-1999 in Kailash Chand Sharma (Petitioner in first of the appeals corresponding to S.L.P. (C) No. 1824/2000) v. State of Rajasthan and connected Writ Petitions are under challenge in these appeals apart from the Division Bench judgment in State of Rajasthan v. Naval Kishore Sharma. The Full Bench followed its earlier judgment in Deepak Kumar Suthar v. State of Rajasthan (W.P. (C) No. 1917/1995) and disposed of the Writ Petitions on the same terms as in the previous Full Bench reference case. At the outset, it may be stated that the judgment of the Full Bench rendered on October 21, 1999 in Deepak Kumar's case (reported in 1999 (2) RLR 692) was in relation to the selection of teachers Grade II and Grade III which was pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Director, Primary and Secondary Education during the year 1995. The said posts of teachers Grade II and Grade III are borne in State cadre under the administrative control of Education Department of the State Government. The second Full Bench judgment, as already noted, was in the context of selections to the posts of teachers district-wise coming within the fold of respective -ila Parishads. In the impugned judgment the Full Bench, however, did not see any impediment in applying the ratio of the previous judgment. The Full Bench observed that "merely because the employment relates to the Panchayats, that does not make any difference in the light of the law laid down in the Full Bench judgment aforementioned." What was called in question by the unsuccessful candidates who filed their applications and appeared before the o.1 Selection Boards was the award of bonus marks to the applicants belonging to the district and the rural areas of the district concerned. The first Full Bench (in the case of Deepak Kumar v. State) held that award of such bonus marks was unconstitutional and the relevant clause in the circular providing for bonus marks was void. The learned Judges observed that "this kind of weightage would give a complete go-bye to the merit of the candidates and would seriously affect the efficiency of administration/teaching." The Full Bench answered 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 residence or on the ground of being a resident of urban area or rural area. . . . . . ." Having so declared the law, the Full Bench gave the following directions in the concluding para of the judgment :
"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 getting 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 in spite 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."
(3.)It is this decision that was followed by the Full Bench in the impugned judgment and the batch of writ petitions were disposed of accordingly. Against this judgment SLPs were filed by the original writ petitioners (six in number) as well as the State Government and the -ila Parishad.