Hon'ble BHANDARI, J.—By this writ petition, a prayer for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr. III has been made. It is pursuant to the advertisement No.1/1998 dated 13.6.1998 issued by Zila Parishad, Jaisalmer.

2. The issue regarding award of bonus marks on the ground of domicile i.e. domicile of Rajasthan, resident of the district and rural area was subject matter of challenge and, finally, it was decided by the Larger Bench of this court. It was challenged before the Apex Court and, therein, number of appeals were decided led by the case of Kailash Chand Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 6 SCC 571.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that after the judgment in the case of Kailash Chand Sharma (supra), number of writ petitions were allowed by this court with the direction of appointment after eliminating bonus marks on the ground of residence. A reference of the judgment in the case of Neeraj Saxena vs. State of Rajasthan, SB Civil Writ Petition No.6829/2006, decided on 23.1.2009 has been given where similar prayer was allowed by this court. The petitioners also approached this court for the same relief, however, writ petition bearing CW 9941/2011 was disposed of by this court vide order dated 3.8.2011 with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide representation of the petitioners. The representation submitted by the petitioners has been rejected by the respondents vide order dated 22.8.2012 and 21.9.2012 at Annexure-5.

4. It is submitted that discrimination has been caused by the non-petitioners in giving appointment on the post of Teacher Gr. III to one Neeraj Saxena in pursuance to the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench while denying same relief to him.

5. I have considered the submissions and perused the record.

6. The petitioners earlier filed writ petition in the year 2011 and prayed for disposal of the representation. The representations made by the petitioners were decided in the year 2011 and 2012 but this writ petition has been filed with the delay of three years without proper explanation.

7. It is also a fact that appointment is sought based on recruitment and select list issued two decades back. As per the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, merit list expires within a period of one year from its issuance. Rule 274 of the Rules of 1996 is quoted hereunder for ready reference -

“274. Preparation of a merit list by the Committee.- (1) The Committee shall prepare a merit list of candidates considered suitable for appointment to each grade or category of posts in the district and shall on receipt of requisition from the Panchayat Samitis or Zila Parishads allot candidates from the list in the order in which their names occur in the list :

Provided that :-

(i) the number of candidates in the merit list prepared by the Committee shall not exceed on and a half time the number of vacancies actually available at the time such merit list is prepared; and

(ii) the merit list of candidates so prepared shall remain valid for a period of one year in general and upto end of a academic session for teachers afte expiry of such period, it will be deemed to have lapsed.

(2) The Panchayat Samitis or Zila Parishads shall take into consideration the requirement of Rule 261 while sending their requisitions to the Committee.”

8. The petitioner has failed to explain as to how the prayer can be granted after expiry of the panel. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “State of UP & ors vs. Harish Chandra & ors”, 1996 IILLJ 627 SC has declined to grant the relief if the writ petition has been filed after expiry of the panel.

9. Apart from the aforesaid, even if the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kailash Chand Sharma (supra) is considered, relief has been confined to the petitioners who moved before the date given therein. The Apex Court dismissed one writ petition as it was filed after one year of the judgment by the High Court and issued directions, which are quoted hereunder for ready reference -

“46. Having due re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document