IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that granting bonus marks based on residence violates the principles of equality under Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution.

ORDER :

1. The law of the land must be enforced in a manner that puts all citizens on the same footing. If the law favours any citizen on any unreasonable ground such as class, status, gender or place of residence etc. the law is unfair and fails to perform its purpose, which is to uphold justice. Every subject of a state must be considered an equal before law and no subject must be treated with some special consideration on an unreasonable ground such as gender, race, class, religion or place of residence, etc. This concept can be summed up in the phrases “equality before law” and “equal protection of law.”

2. This concept can also be found in Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of which India was a signatory. This provision states that “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.”

3. The legal issue involved in these writ petitions is “whether 10 additional bonus marks can be granted to the candidates/personnel, for opting their present place of posting?” Whether grant of additional bonus marks to such candidates amounts to violation of the Fundamental Rights of other candidates contained under Articles 14, 15 & 16 of the Constitution of India? It is in this background the issue involved in these writ petitions is required to be considered.

4. Common cause of action and identical question of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions, hence, with the consent of counsel for the parties, final arguments have been heard and the same are being decided by this common order.

5. For the sake of convenience, the facts and prayer pleaded in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14474/2024 are taken into consideration.

6. By way of filing of this writ petition, a challenge has been made against condition No. 9 of the advertisement issued by the Director, Secondary Education on 11.07.2024 for selection and appointment on the post of Teachers in the Mahatma Gandhi Government English Medium Schools and Swami Vivekanand Government Model Schools (SVGMS) and all other Government English Medium Schools.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per Condition No. 9 of the advertisement, for selection in English Medium Schools, a written examination would be organised by the respondent-department. The said written examination would consist of 100 marks and if the personnel/candidate gives the option of posting to the district where he/she is currently posted, 10 additional bonus marks will be given to him/her for selection/posting in the said district. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid condition is not in consonance with Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Special Selection and Special Conditions of Service for Appointment of Personnel in the English Medium Schools) Rules, 2023 (for short ‘the Rules of 2023’). Learned counsel submits that it is settled proposition of law that a condition in the advertisement cannot be contrary to the Rules and Regulations of Service and Appointment. Learned counsel submits that without there being any provision for grant of bonus marks under the Rules, the impugned Condition No. 9 has been incorporated in the advertisement. Learned counsel submits that, under these circumstances, the impugned condition is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed and set aside by this Court. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid action of the respondents is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

8. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the cases of Kailash Chand Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan & Others, (2002) 6 SCC 562 and The Employees’ State Insurance Corporation vs. Union of India & Others, 2022 SCC Online SC 70.

9. Per contra, learned Advocate General opposed the arguments raised by learned counse