JUDGMENT 1. :- The petitioner has claimed the appointment on the post of Primary School Teacher in Panchayat Samiti and it is submitted that she has obtained 62.87% marks. The respondents have erred in not giving 5% marks which was mentioned in the advertisement meant for the residents of rural area and for that purpose a certificate of the Administrator and Secretary of the Gram Panchayat counter-signed by the Block Development Officer was to be submitted. It is submitted that the petitioner has submitted the certificate of the SDM, Amer dated 25.7.1989 in which the SDM has certified on the basis of the affidavit and report of the Tehsildar that the petitioner is the bonafide resident of Kaladera Tehsil Chomu District Jaipur. Another certificate dated 22.9.1994 has been issued which has been signed by some person who has not put his seal, but countersigned by the BDO, Panchayat Samiti Govindgarh in which it is certified that the petitioner is the resident of Panchayat Samiti Govindgarh and the name of the father and family member is entered in the voters list of 1993. It is submitted that inspite of fulfilling the conditions by submitting the certificat to the appropriate authority, the petitioner is not being provided with the employment and even she was called for by the Interview Board on 17.10.1994, the name of the petitioner has not been included in the merit list and has been shown at Sr.No. 36. The action of the respondents is challenged on that ground. 2. The respondents have come with a plea that the benefit of bonafide resident of village was given to the candidates who have obtained the certificate of bonafide resident of the village from the Administrator cum Secretary, Gram Panchayat and duly signed by Vikas Adhikari. The prescribed certificate was not submitted within the prescribed time. It is also stated that the enquiries were made in this regard about the father of the petitioner who is in Government service. The petitioner has studied at Jaipur and cannot be considered to be the bonafide resident of the rural area. The attention has also been drawn towards the application submitted by the petitioner in which postal address has been shown as village & post Kaladera, Chomu, Distt. Jaipur. The entire education has been obtained by the petitioner at Jaipur, i.e. in the urban area and not in the rural area. The attention has also been drawn towards the application submitted by the petitioner in which postal address has been shown as village & post Kaladera, Chomu, Distt. Jaipur. The entire education has been obtained by the petitioner at Jaipur, i.e. in the urban area and not in the rural area. The certificate of the Assistant Director, Sanskrit Education, dated 10.5.1994 was submitted in which it was stated that the certifying officer knows the petitioner daughter of Shri Ram Gopal Chaturvedi, resident of Jaipur since last 5 years. The enquiry was conducted by the respondents and the BDO, Panchayat Samiti Govindgarh has reported that the petitioner is resident of Jaipur and Shri Ram Gopal Chaturvedi is living at Jaipur and was adopted 20 years earlier. He has no ration card in Gram Panchayat, Kaladera in respect of the year 1990-91 and even of 1994. In the voters list, the name has been shown from 1983 to 1985 and in the voters list of 1988, 1989 and 1991, 1993 and 1994 the name is there. In the voters list of 1995, there is no name. 3. I have considered over the matter. The benefit of 5% bonus marks is to be given on the basis of the instructions issued to those candidates for which the certificate is submitted. It is stated that earlier instructions are not available, but in accordance with the instructions dated 24.7.1995 there is no change except the number of marks which have been increased from 5 to 10. The instructions 9.1 to 9.7 reads as under:- HINDI MATTER 363015 4. From the facts which have come on record it is not in dispute that the petitioner obtained her entire education in the urban area and, therefore, so far as conditions mentioned in 9.2, the petitioner is not eligible. The claim of the petitioner is on the basis of para 9.1 and it is stated that the parents of the petitioner are living in the village since last 10 years. It is an admitted position that the father of the petitioner is in the service working as P.A. to Director, Sankrit Education and had not been in rural area since the time he had joined the service. It is an admitted position that the father of the petitioner is in the service working as P.A. to Director, Sankrit Education and had not been in rural area since the time he had joined the service. The question for determination is as to whether a person originally belonging to rural area, if joined the service whether he would be entitled for 5% bonus marks as claimed by the petitioner. The words used in para 9.1, mentioned above, contemplates that the parent of the candidate must be residing in a village for last 10 years. This refers to the present position, i.e. when the application is made the parents of the candidate must be residing in the village and that period must not be less than 10 years. The parents of the petitioner were not residing in village and were admittedly residing at Jaipur and, therefore, simply because the name exists in the voters lit or that the petitioner has some property in the village, it would be considered that the said circular by which the benefit of 5% bonus marks is to be given should be given to the petitioner as well. 5. In these circumstnaces, I do not consider that the present one is a fit case for invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******