Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the reference question:

• The Larger Bench was constituted to resolve conflicting views from different Division Benches on whether a convict's right to parole can be considered under the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 during the pendency of an appeal against conviction. (!)
• The specific question referred for adjudication is: "Whether the right of an accused/prisoner/convict to be released on parole can be considered by the State Govt. under the provisions of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 during the pendency of any appeal filed by him/her against his/her conviction." (!)
• The matter originated from a letter petition by convict Ramesh Kumar, who was serving a life sentence and had a special leave to appeal pending before the Supreme Court, claiming he was ineligible for parole solely because of the pending appeal. (!) (!)
• There were divergent views in previous Division Bench decisions: one line of view (e.g., Bhanwar Lal Godara and Gani Khan) held that parole could be granted after conviction even if an appeal was pending, while another line of view (Umesh Kumar Singh) held that the State Government could not exercise parole powers while an appeal was pending and the appellate court was in seisin of the case. (!)
• The core legal principle relied upon is the Constitution Bench decision in K.M. Nanavati vs. State of Bombay, which established that so long as the judiciary has the power to pass an order in a pending case (specifically under Section 426 of Cr.P.C. 1898/Section 389 of Cr.P.C. 1973 regarding suspension of sentence pending appeal), the power of the Executive is limited. (!) (!) (!)
• The Supreme Court in Nanavati harmonized Section 401 (1898)/Section 432 (1973) (powers of the Executive) with Section 426 (1898)/Section 389 (1973) (powers of the Appellate Court), ruling that the Executive's power does not cover the period when an appeal is pending and the Court is seized of the matter. (!) (!) (!)
• Since the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 were framed under Section 401(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (equivalent to Section 432 of the Code of 1973), the Supreme Court's dictum in Nanavati applies directly, rendering the Rules inoperative during the pendency of an appeal. (!) (!)
• The Larger Bench concluded that granting parole during the pendency of an appeal would lead to a conflict of jurisdiction between the Judiciary and the Executive, which the Constitution makers did not intend. (!)
• The Bench respectfully concurred with the observations in Umesh Kumar Singh and held that the decision in Bhanwar Lal Godara was not in conformity with the Constitution Bench decision in K.M. Nanavati. (!)
• The answer to the referred question of law is in the negative: the right to be released on parole cannot be considered by the State Government during the pendency of an appeal against conviction. (!) (!)