Veerender Singh Siradhana, J. - (1.) THE petitioners, in the instant writ application, have staked their claim for grant of bonus marks while challenging the legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 11th March, 2013, which provides the guidelines for awarding bonus marks for appointment on the post of Dental Technician. The petitioners have approached this Court praying for the following relief(s): - - "i. By issuing an appropriate order, writ or direction the respondents may be directed to give bonus marks to the petitioners and discrimination shall be made between the government and the private dental colleges. ii. Cost of the writ petition be also awarded in favour of the petitioner. iii. Any other appropriate order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper be passed in favour of the petitioner in the larger interest of equity, justice and law."
(2.) BRIEFLY , the indispensable material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised herein, needs to be first noticed. It is pleaded case of the petitioners that they passed out their final year Dental Hygienist Examination from Jaipur Dental College in the year 2009. The petitioners submitted their application for consideration of their candidature in response to the advertisement dated 26th February, 2013, inviting the applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Dental Technician. It is further pleaded that Clause -8 of the advertisement provides for grant of ten marks for one year and maximum thirty marks for three years. The petitioners, since 1st April, 2009, have been working as Dental Hygienist in the Department of Conservative, Jaipur Dental College, Jaipur, and therefore, have acquired the required experience of three years, and thus, are entitled for grant of thirty bonus marks. The State -respondents while issuing the order dated 11th March, 2013, though permitted grant of such bonus marks to the candidates of Jhalawar Medical College and Hospital Society, but the same benefit has not been extended to the petitioners. On 27th January, 2015, none appeared on behalf of the petitioners, and therefore, the matter was adjourned making it clear that if none appears on the next date, the matter will be proceeded with on the basis of pleadings. Today, neither the petitioner nor the counsel for the petitioner is present to prosecute the writ proceedings.
(3.) I have carefully considered the pleadings of the writ application and the materials available on record.;