JUDGMENT 1. - By both these petitions, the petitioner seeks a direction that he is entitled to be granted bonus marks as per the Government Orders and consequently liable to be considered for appointment under the Government. 2. By Writ Petition No. 1492/92 appointment is claimed to the post of Librarian Grade III and by Writ Petition No. 5646/92 appointment is claimed to the post of teacher Grade III. The basis is same. Also impugned in this petition is the order dated 10.5.89, on the basis of which the petitioner is not granted benefit of bonus marks, as according to this order the Wards of Teachers working in Panchayat Samitis are excluded. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the exclusion is unconstitutional being unreasonable and arbitrary. He submits that there cannot be any difference between Teachers working in Panchayat Samitis and Teachers working in the Education Department of the Government of Rajasthan. He relied on a decision of this Court reported in 1981 WLN 523, wherein it has been held by this Court that a Member of the Rajasthan Panchayat Service is a member of Civil Service of the State. The learned counsel, therefore, contended that the ultimate master of an employee in the service is the State Government. 4. A teacher in the Education Department and a teacher in the Panchayat Samiti cannot, therefore, be differently treated. The employment in the State sector or in the Panchayat Samiti sector, cannot be a reasonable basis for classification and, therefore, wards of teachers must be equally treated for grant of bonus marks in the matter of their selection for employment under the State. 5. The learned counsel then relied on a decision in Writ Petition No. 4818/91 dated 12th March, 92, wherein it has been held by this Court that the grant of bonus marks to the wards of teachers in the employment of the State is concerned, is unconstitutional. It was observed at the same time that grant of such marks to wards of teachers who have died in service after putting in five years of service is constitutionally valid. 6. It was then contended that by necessary implication, the grant of such marks to the wards of employees who have retired is also valid and no distinction can be made between employees in the Education Department and employees in the Panchayat Samitis. 7. 6. It was then contended that by necessary implication, the grant of such marks to the wards of employees who have retired is also valid and no distinction can be made between employees in the Education Department and employees in the Panchayat Samitis. 7. Opposing these submissions, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that in view of the judgement in Writ Petition No. 4818/91, the Government has issued a Circular on 1.4.93, doing away with the grant of bonus marks to any category of candidates. He, therefore, submitted that non- consideration of the petitioner was proper. 8. A perusal of the Advertisement will show that the vacancies for which the petitioner applied pertains to the year 1992-93 and, therefore, they must be governed by Rules existing at that time. The Circular dated 1.4.93 cannot and does not have retrospective effect. The position prevalent would, therefore, be that bonus marks will have to be given to the wards of employees of the State who died in service and wards of employees who retired from service. 9. There is no reasonable basis for classification between teachers employed in State Government and teachers employed in the Panchayat Samitis. Both of them are employees of the State. Denial of bonus marks only to the wards of teachers in Panchayat Samitis would, therefore, be unconstitutional. Such wards are also liable to be considered for employment after grant of bonus marks. Denial of such marks to the petitioner is, therefore, unsustainable in law. 10. In the result, the petitions are allowed. The petitioner is entitled to grant of bonus marks in relation to vacancies for the year 1992-93 and he, consequently, is liable to be considered for appointment after grant of 5 bonus marks. The respondents are, therefore, directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post under the State, after granting him 5 bonus marks. In the event he is found to have secured more marks than those who have been appointed, he should be given appropriate appointment and should also be granted deemed seniority in that post from the date such persons have been appointed. It is, however, made clear that he shall not be entitled to any monetary claims towards deemed arrears of salary or of any other nature. The appointment shall be prospective. It is, however, made clear that he shall not be entitled to any monetary claims towards deemed arrears of salary or of any other nature. The appointment shall be prospective. Only deemed seniority can be granted to the petitioner in the event of his being held eligible for appointment, after grant of bonus marks. Rule is made absolute in these terms. No order as to costs.Rule made absolute.Petitions allowed. *******