TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 2045
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....licated that no man alive knows what it means." 3. Award of bonus marks to candidates seeking appointment to the post of Primary School Teachers in Zila Parishad of various districts in the State of Rajasthan during the year 1998-99 was struck down and declared unconstitutional by a Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court vide judgment dated November 18, 1999 in Kailash Chand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan in W.P.(C) No. 3928 of 1998, for the reason that any kind of weightage and advantage in public employment in a State service is not permissible on the ground of place of birth, residence or on the ground of being a resident of urban or rural area. The Full Bench in Kailash Chand Sharma's case (supra) had followed an earlier Full Bench judgment in Deepak Kumar Suthar and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (1999) 2 Rajasthan Law Reporter 692 wherein similar stipulations for grant of bonus marks in selection of Grade II and Grade III teachers in the state cadre were struck down as unconstitutional. However, in Deepak Kumar Suthar's case (supra), no consequential and substantive relief was granted to the writ Petitioners therein as first, they did not have a chance of selectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nus marks to residents of districts and residents of rural area amounts to impermissible discrimination as there was no rational basis for such preferential treatment. Thereafter this Court, in paragraph 36 onwards, in Kailash Chand Sharma's case (supra) had elaborately and expressly considered the question of relief after noticing operative directions in Deepak Kumar Suthar's case (supra). In view of the factual matrix and for several reasons recorded, this Court felt that there was a need to balance competing claims and accordingly doctrine of prospective overruling was partially applied vide paragraphs 45 and 46 of this decision, which read as under: 45. One more point which needs mention. Some of the learned Counsel argued that the unsuccessful applicant should not be allowed to challenge the selection process to the extent it goes against their interest, after having participated in the selection and waited for the result. It is contended that the discretionary relief Under Article 226 should not be granted to such persons. Reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Madan Lal v. State of J & K (1995) 3 SCC 486 and other cases in support of this argumen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, if necessary, by removing such appointed candidates. The date November 18, 1999 selected by the Supreme Court was the date on which the Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court had pronounced its judgment in Kailash Chand Sharma's case (supra). As noticed above, after the Full Bench decision in Kailash Chand Sharma's case (supra), a number of writ petitions had been filed before the High Court in which directions for preparation of a fresh merit list without bonus marks, appointment in terms of the new selection list, etc., had been issued. These directions, being contrary to the ratio and directions given by this Court in Kailash Chand Sharma's (supra), were therefore rendered inconsequential. To this extent, decision in Naval Kishore case (supra) and other similar cases were overruled/impliedly overruled. 8. In spite of the aforesaid enunciation and directions in Kailash Chand Sharma's case (supra), it is apparent that in several cases, directions similar to Naval Kishore's case (supra) for re-computation of marks after excluding bonus marks were issued in favour of candidates who had approached and invoked jurisdiction of the High Court after November 17, 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Kailash Chand Sharma's case (supra) or the directions that were issued in para 46 thereof to suggest that this Court was either conscious of or informed of pendency of any writ petition filed before the High Court after 18th November, 1999. There is also nothing to suggest that this Court intended the benefit granted in terms of direction (1) under para 46 to extend not only to the writ-Petitioners who had moved the High Court in Kailash Chand Sharma's case (supra) and in the writ petition filed by Naval Kishore and others but the same has intended to benefit all those who had or may have moved the High Court at any point of time. On the contrary there is positive indication of the fact that the Court did not intend to extend the benefit to any Appellant who had challenged the award of bonus marks and the selection process on the basis thereof at any stage after 18th November, 1999. This is evident from the fact that Writ Petition No. 542 of 2000 filed in this Court Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India was dismissed by this Court in terms of direction (3) under para 46 on the ground that the same had been filed nearly one year after the judgment of the High Court.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ma's case (supra). In Manmohan Sharma's case (supra), the Bench observed that there was no need to enlarge the scope of the directions issued in Kailash Chand Sharma's case (supra) to others and that the Court was not hearing a review petition nor could the Court modify the order passed by this Court in Kailash Chand Sharma's case (supra). The contention of some Petitioners in Category II who had been appointed on re-computation of the result on merits after November 18, 1999 was rejected as illegal and impermissible in the light of the judgment of this Court in Kailash Chand Sharma's case (supra). The plea and contention of parity and similar treatment was also rejected observing that wrong appointments should have been challenged expeditiously and not belatedly, and that such appointments would not confer any right. That apart, it was recorded in Manmohan Sharma's case (supra) that the State had filed an affidavit satisfactorily refuting the factual submissions made at the Bar. 11. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners had drawn our attention to paragraph 24 of the decision in Manmohan Sharma's case (supra) which refers to the case of one Danveer Si....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by aspirants anxiously waiting and hoping of favourable outcome in the foreclosed and covered litigation. They cannot succeed and these applications are dismissed. We were informed that there are a large number of vacant posts and, therefore, it has been contended that the benefit should be extended. We do not agree and should not accept the said contentions as it would fall foul and would be clearly contrary to the ratio of Kailash Chand Sharma's and Manmohan Sharma's cases (supra). 12. Our attention was also drawn to the case of Neeraj Saxena in whose case the writ appeal filed by the State Government against the order of the Single Judge was dismissed on the ground of delay and inaction. The Special Leave Petition against the decision of the Division Bench was also dismissed on the ground of delay. This decision of the Division Bench in Neeraj Saxena and the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition on the ground of delay does not lay down any ratio in the form of precedent. At best, the decision of the Single Judge in the case of Neeraj Saxena as in the case of Danveer Singh would apply to the specific candidates in whose case the decision would operate as res judicata. ....