LAKSHMANAN, CJ. - (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties 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. 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 district for which posts are advertised. In these cases, merit list was prepared giving the aforesaid bonus marks to the candidates eligible for those bonus marks and some of the candidates were also given appointment on the basis of the merit list prepared. The sustainability of the above provisions in the State Circular was questioned in the above batch of writ petitions. 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 Kumar Suthar and another vs. State of Rajasthan 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 State 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. The learned Single Judge has also referred to other Full Bench Judgments in the case of, namely; Kailash Chand Sharma vs. The State of Rajasthan and others 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 Suthar'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 strictly 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. "
(3.) 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 B. Ed. Course without indicating any material to show that the nexus between such distribution and the objection sought to be achieved, it would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court 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 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 it 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. 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 petitioners is that unitwise distribution of seats is but a different manifestation of the district wise distribution sought in 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 seats 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. " ;