PARIHAR, J. - (1.) PETITIONERS have challenged the Circular dated 1. 7. 2003, by which, certain directions have been issued by the State Government in regard to giving appointment to the post of Teacher Gr. III in pursuance to the selections made for the year 1998-99 apart from some other ancillary prayers.
(2.) IT has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that violating the directions issued by the Supreme Court in case of Kailash Chand Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1), the respondents intend to re-open the whole panel of select list which expired long back in the year 1999 itself, thereby, infringing the rights of the candidates, who might otherwise became eligible for appointment to the post for the vacancies after 1999. While admitting the writ petition on 23. 7. 2003, this court also stayed further process in pursuance to the impugned order dated 1. 7. 2003. Subsequently, an application for withdrawing the writ petition was submitted by the petitioners on 30. 7. 2003, however, the same was dismissed as not pressed as prayed by counsel for the petitioners on 21. 8. 2003. Again, an application has been filed by the petitioners for withdrawing the writ petition on 3. 9. 2003, however, looking to the controversy involved in the present matter, affecting large number of candidates, the Advocate General was directed to assist the Court vide order dated 4. 9. 2003. An advertisement came to be issued by the respondents in the year 1998 for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr. III and as per the criteria fixed for preparing the merit list, 10 bonus marks were prescribed for residents of the district for which the selections were to be made and further 5 bonus marks were provided for the residents of rural area of the district concerned. The provision of providing bonus marks for residency in the above selections came to be challenged before this court in large number of writ petitions. In view of some earlier judgments, on a reference been made by a learned Single Judge, Full Bench was constituted by the Hon'ble Chief Justice. The Full Bench in case of Deepak Kumar Suthar vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2), while answering the reference, held that any kind of weightage in public employment in any State service is not permissible on the ground of place of birth or residency or on the ground for being resident of urban or rural area vide judgment dated 21. 10. 1999 and issued the following directions:- " 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 with 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.) THE above judgment was further followed by another Full Bench of this Court in case of Kailash Chand Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. , decided on 18. 11. 1999 in the same terms. The controversy, ultimately, came to be resolved by the Supreme Court in the case of Kailash Chand Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra ). While upholding the judgments of the Full Bench of this Court, as cited above, the Supreme Court, while considering the prospectivity of the judgments, issued following directions in para 46 of the judgment, which is reproduced hereasunder:- " 46. Having due regard to the rival contentions adverted to above and keeping in view the factual scenario and the need to balance the competing claims in the light of acceptance of prospective overruling in principle, we consider it just and proper to confine the relief only to the petitioners who moved the High Court and to make appointments made on or after 18. 11. 1999 in any of the districts to the claims of the petitioners. Accordingly, we direct: 1. The claims of the writ petitioners should be considered afresh in the light of this judgments vis-a-vis the candidates appointed on a or after 18. 11. 1999 or those in the select list who are yet to be appointed. On such consideration, if those writ petitioners are found to have superior merit in case the bonus marks of 10% and/or 5% are excluded, they should be offered appointments, if necessary, by displacing the candidates appointed on or after 18. 11. 1999. 2. The appointments made upto 17. 11. 1999 need not be reopened and reconsidered in the light of the law laid down in this judgments. 3. Writ Petition No. 542 of 2000 filed in this court under Article 32 is hereby dismissed as it was filed nearly one year after the judgments of the High Court and no explanation has been tendered for not approaching the High Court under Article 226 at an earlier point of time. " The main consideration before the Supreme Court, it appears, in the present case, while issuing above directions, was to prevent unsettlement of the settled positions and further to prevent administrative chaos and to meet the ends of justice. A bare reading of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kailash Chand Sharma (supra) would show that the relief was confined only to those writ petitioners who had moved this court on or before 18. 11. 1999 when the second judgment was delivered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kailash Chand Sharma (supra ). Thus, apparently, even if any fresh exercise is to be made by the respondents in regard to giving appointment to the post in question in pursuance to the advertisement issued for the year 1998-99, the same has to be made only for those petitioners who had filed the writ petitions prior to the above date i. e. 18. 11. 1999. ;