The court's decision emphasized the importance of timely seeking relief and the limitation on the scope of relief as directed by the Supreme Court.

1. 1. The petitioner applied for the post of Teacher Gr.III in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the respondents in the year 1998. As per circular, issued by the State Government in regard to the above selections, 10 bonus marks were provided 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. Providing benefit of bonus marks, as referred above, came to be challenged by some of the candidates by way of filing writ petitions before this court.

2. In view of different views, expressed by some of the Benches, the matter came to be referred to the Larger Bench of this court. The Larger Bench decided the controversy in favour of the petitioners, who had challenged the validity of providing bonus marks on the basis of residency, as referred above. The controversy ultimately came to be raised before the Supreme Court in the SLPs, filed by the following categories of persons :

"(1) Those filed by the original writ petitioners who were aggrieved by the direction in the judgment either confining its application prospectively or denying relief on the ground that writ petitioners would not have been selected even if 10 or 15 bonus marks are excluded. The appellant in the first these appeals-Kailash Chand Sharma-belongs to this category. He hails from the district of Karouli and he applied for the job in Banner district.

(2) Those candidates who have not been offered appointment, thou*h selected on the strength of the weightage accorded for residents of the District and rural areas comprised therein.

(3) Those selected on the basis of weightage and appointed after 21.10.1999, whose appointments were likely to be cancelled in view of the directions in the impugned judgments.

(4) Official respondents in the writ petitions, viz., State of Rajasthan and Zila Parishads."

3. The Supreme Court, while deciding the controversy, involved in the present matter in the case of (1) Kailash Chand Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & ON. and other connected Civil Appeals, reported in AIR 2002 SC 2877, issued following directions in para 51 of the judgment, which are reproduced as under :

"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 subject 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 judgment vis-a-vis the candidates appointed on 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 judgment.

(3) Writ Petition No. 542/2000 filed in this court under Article 32 is hereby dismissed as it was filed nearly one year after the judgment 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."

4. The judgment in the case of Kailash Chand Sharma (supra) has further been followed by the Supreme Court in the case of (2) Harshendra Choubisa & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in AIR 2002 SC 2897.

5. The present writ petition has been filed relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court, as referred above, after more than five years of the selections, made in the present matter. Since the Supreme Court has only confined the relief to those