KAILASH CHAND SHARMA ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 317 · Decided: 30-07-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

KAILASH CHAND SHARMA ETC. ETC. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. 
JULY 30, 2002 
[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, JJ.] 
B 
Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996-Rule 273 and its proviso--
Circular providing bonus marks to the residents of district and of rural areas 
<?fthe district/or selection to public employment-Validity of-Held, amounts C 
to impermissible discrimination-Reasons for classification are either non-
existent or irrelevant and have no nexus with the object sought to be achieved-
High Court Judgment to have prospective effect in view of the fact that the 
Circular was challenged only after selection process was completed and in 
view of earlier decisions of the High Court holding the field-Relief confined 
only to writ petitioners before High Court-Relief granted under Article I 42 D 
of the Constitution of India in special facts and circumstances of the case-
Constitution of India, I 950-Articles 14, I 6 and 142. 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article 16 (1),(2) and (3)-Preferential treatment in public employment E 
on the ground of residence in particular areo-Held residence by itself cannot 
be a ground to accord preferential treatment or reservation, save as provided 
in Article I 6(3). 
Article 16(2)-Prohibitory mandate under-Held is not attracted if the 
alleged discrimination is on grounds not merely related to residence, but the F 
factum of residence is only taken into account in addition to other relevant 
factors. 
Policy Decision of Government-Propriety of and interference with-If 
it is subversive of the doctrine of equality, it cannot sustain-It should be free G 
from the vice of arbitrariness and conform to the norms both positive and 
negative underlying Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 
Prospective overruling: 
Public employment-Circular providing for bonus marks to rural H 
317 
318 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A candidates-Challenge thereto upheld by High Court-Since challenge was 
made after selection process was completed and in view of earlier decisions 
of the High Court holding the field, the judgment will operate prospectively-
Precedents-Judgment-Operation of 
Precedents-Relief moulded in order to render complete justice in specific 
B cases based on special facts and circumstances-Not to be treated as precedent. 
A Circular was issued providing for bonus marks of 10%+5% for 
the residents of districts and rural areas of districts for selection to the 
posts of primary school teachers. Unsuccessful candidates-petitioners filed 
C writ petition before High Court challenging the Circular. In the meantime, 
select lists were published in some districts. Full Bench of High Court 
declared the Circular illegal and unconstitutional following the decision 
in Deepak Kumar Suthar v. State of Rajasthan, (1999) 2 RLR 692. Thereafter 
one more batch of writ petitions was disposed of by Single Judge of High 
Court directing fresh merit list to be prepared in respect of the candidates 
D who were appointed on or before 21.10.1999 (i.e. the date of judgment in 
Deepak Kumar's case) without considering the bonus marks. 
·E 
F 
In appeal to this Court, the State and the counsel appearing for 
successful candidates contended that in view of social, economic ' 
backwardness of the area residence within the district or rural areas of 
that district could be a valid basis for classification for the purpose of 
public employment as well; that the award of bonus marks to the residents 
of rural areas is a measure of affirmative action or c'ompensatory 
discrimination to help a disadvantaged section namely the rural people; 
that the classification is grounded on considerations having nexus with the 
object sought to be achieved and is not merely related to residence; that 
residents of town and other districts if appointed will not be willing to serve 
the rural areas and they will be more interested in getting themselves 
transferred to relatively urban areas and forward districts; and that those 
belonging to the same district and rural areas in that district will be better 
G familiar with local dialect. It is also contended that there is no rationale 
prescribing a cut off date with reference to the date of judgment and hence 
the entire selection process should be kept out of the clutches of the 
impugned judgment. 
The petitioners-unsuccessful candidates contended that the impugned 
H circular is unconstitutional, as held by the High Court and that there is

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.