Honble CHAUHAN, J.–The petitioners in this case had applied for the post of Teacher Grades II and III in pursuance to the advertisement issued for the year 1995-96 by the Director, Primary & Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner. They faced the selection process but could not be selected for the reason that criteria adopted by the respondent-authorities for selection provided for giving ten bonus marks to candidates of urban area and fifteen bonus marks to candidates belonging to rural area. Petitioners, who belong to urban area, could secure less bonus marks than candidates belonging to rural area. Thus,petitioners have challenged the discriminatory criterion on the ground of residence in urban and rural area. (2). Respondents have filed reply contending that State took policy-decision for providing more bonus marks to rural candidates `for uplifting the rural educated persons so that their services could be utilized to the upmost extent as such persons shall take keen interest and responsibilities for the up-liftment of socially backwards areas they hail from....The rural candidates will be willing to serve the rural areas happily and shall consider it their own work, thereby working with zeal and enthusiasm for spread of education and the over-all up-liftment of the fellow rural masses. So the award of more bonus marks to the rural candidates in comparison to the urban candidates is most reasonable and just, and the policy of the Government in doing so does not have any flaw. (3). Two judgments of Division Benches of this Court have been brought to our notice wherein this Court is said to have considered and up-held the validity of similar criterion for selection of Teacher Grade III under the Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Service Rules, 1959 (hereinafter called ``the Rules, 1959), viz., Smt. Baljit Kaur vs. State of Rajasthan (1); and State of Rajasthan & Anr. vs. Arvind Kumar Kochar (2). While considering the instant case, the court expressed reservation in accepting the ratio decendi of the said judgments and referred the matter to the Larger Bench for answering the following question:- ``In State of Rajasthan, almost each and every department, while making recruitment, additional ten and five marks are being awarded as bonus marks to the candidates belonging to the same district, for which recruitment is advertised alongwith some extra marks on the ground that the candidate belongs to the rural area. Whether awarding such bonus marks is permissible and is in consonance with the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India? (4). Petitioners have restricted their case to the discrimination in awarding the bonus marks on the ground of residence in urban and rural areas. But as the larger question has been referred to, we have also examined whether awarding bonus marks on such grounds, is permissible in law at all. (5). The respondents have not placed the policy decision on record, rather an undated Circular issued by the office of the Director of Education, has been filed. Clause 13 of the said Circular provides that while preparing the select list, a candidate, be given ten bonus marks if he is resident of the district for which the posts are advertised, and further five bonus marks to the resident of rural areas. It has further been explained that in case a candidate belongs to the district, for which the posts are advertised, ten bonus marks shall be given to the candidate belonging to urban area and fifteen bonus marks to the resident of rural area. (6). Learned counsel for the respondents, in spite of our persistent quarries, could not point out any enabling provision, under which the said Circular has been issued, nor could it be explained as whether the Circular was an executive order issued under Article 162 of the Constitution, or was merely a Circular issued by the Directorate of Education. (7). It is settled proposition of law that the Writ Court, in its limited jurisdiction of judicial review, should not interfere with the policy decision adopted by the Government unless it is found to be unreasonable or arbitrary. In the Tamil Nadu Education Department M & G. Subordinate Services Association vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (3), the Honble Supreme Court has held as under:- ``Once the principle is found to be rational the fact that a few freak instances of hardship may arise on either side cannot be a ground to invalidate the order or the policy. Every cause claims a martyr.... this is an area where in absence of arbitrariness and irrationality the Court has to adopt a hands-off policy. (8). The same view has consistently been reiterated by the Honble Apex Court, from time and again (Vide Delhi Science Forum & ors. vs. Union of India & Anr. Every cause claims a martyr.... this is an area where in absence of arbitrariness and irrationality the Court has to adopt a hands-off policy. (8). The same view has consistently been reiterated by the Honble Apex Court, from time and again (Vide Delhi Science Forum & ors. vs. Union of India & Anr. (4); Sandeep Kumar Sharma vs. State of Punjab and Ors. (5); Government of Tamil Nadu & Anr. vs. A Arumugham & Ors. (6); State of Punjab & ors vs. Ram Lubhaya Bagga & Ors. (7); STEL Ltd. & ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (8); and Shivaji University through Director vs. Bharti Vidyapeeth through Joint Secretary & Ors. (9). (9). Therefore, the basic question for consideration is whether the Circular, which according to the respondents manifests the policy decision of the State Government, stands the test of reasonableness and unarbitrariness, and is consistent with the mandate of the Constitutional provisions? (10). Article 14 of the Constitution inhibits discrimination and provides for equality before law and equal protection of law. Article 15 restrains the State to ``discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex place of birth or any of them. Clause (1) of Article 16 mandates for ``equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Clause (2) of Article 16 prohibits discrimination against any citizen in respect of any employment or office under the State on various grounds including place of birth and residence. Clause (3) of Article 16 empowers the Parliament to enact, making an exception to Clauses (1) and (2). Clause (4) enables the State to make reservations in favour of any backward class of citizens which is not adequately represented in the service under the State. (11). The Courts endeavour is to examine whether the Circular in question meets the requirements of the aforesaid provisions of the Constitution, particularly in view of the fact that there is no material or data before the Court, on the basis of which the State Government had taken the policy decision, nor the policy decision is on record. (11). The Courts endeavour is to examine whether the Circular in question meets the requirements of the aforesaid provisions of the Constitution, particularly in view of the fact that there is no material or data before the Court, on the basis of which the State Government had taken the policy decision, nor the policy decision is on record. It is a matter of common knowledge that the entire rural masses are not socially and educationally backward, nor can it be presumed that they are not adequately represented in the State Services, nor there can be any quarrel to the legal proposition that any kind of preference on the ground of place of birth or residence, is impermissible under the frame-work of our Constitution. It further remains undisputed that the Parliament never enacted any law enabling the State to take such a policy decision and no one else, except the Parliament, is competent to legislate providing for a ``Mulki-Rule or giving recognition to ``son of the soil theory as explained by the Constitution Benches of the Honble Supreme Court in A.V.S. Narasimha Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (10); and The Director of Industries & Commerce, Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. Venkata Reddy (11). It further remains undisputed that the State Government cannot take a policy decision in respect of a subject-matter, for which the State Legislature is incompetent to legislate. (12). The Division Bench of this Court, in Smt. Baljit Kaur (supra) considered the validity of amendment of rule 17 of the Rules, 1959, which read as under:- ``Provided further that the District Establishment Committee shall make selections for various posts in accordance with the General Directions given by the Government from time to time without calling for interview if so provided in those Instructions. (13). The said proviso was challenged on the ground that it provided for an unbriddled, unguided, unfattered and uncanalised power to the State Government to issue the directions and, therefore, the proviso was arbitrary and, thus, violative of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. This Court held that acquisition of power by the State Government by adding the proviso to rule 17 did not amount to abdication of the essential legislative functions of any authority, nor was it violative of any of the Constitutional mandate and thus the said proviso was intra-vires of the Act and the Rules. (14). This Court held that acquisition of power by the State Government by adding the proviso to rule 17 did not amount to abdication of the essential legislative functions of any authority, nor was it violative of any of the Constitutional mandate and thus the said proviso was intra-vires of the Act and the Rules. (14). The Court examined the validity of Clause 7 of the Circular issued by the State Government under proviso to rule 17 of the Rules, 1959, which provided for bonus marks to the bonafide residents of the District for which the posts had been advertised and upheld the same observing as under:- ``But here we are concerned with the teachers who are to be employed at the grass root level and a due regard has to be given to the rural set up social structure of the villages and to provide more and more job opportunities to people living in villages so as to avoid pressure on urban areas. These are the essential factors which have to be taken into consideration and we should not lose sight of the social milieu of our country side. (15). A reading of the reasoning given by this Court for upholding the validity of the said Clause has not been derived after judging the proviso on the touch-stone of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The reasoning merely remains a wishful thinking of betterment of rural segment of the country. Such expression of sentiments do not lay down any law if examined on the anvil of the Constitutional provisions. (16). The validity of such condition was challenged in Arvind Kumar Kochar (supra) contending that no preference can be given to a candidate on the ground of residence and the same was accepted by the learned Single Judge and the said Clause was struck down. States appeal against the said judgment was allowed by the Division Bench placing much reliance on the judgment in Smt. Baljit Kaur, as the Court observed as under:- ``The Division Bench further held that the Circular issued by the Government with a view to promote candidates belonging to rural areas, does not suffer from any Constitutional infirmity. States appeal against the said judgment was allowed by the Division Bench placing much reliance on the judgment in Smt. Baljit Kaur, as the Court observed as under:- ``The Division Bench further held that the Circular issued by the Government with a view to promote candidates belonging to rural areas, does not suffer from any Constitutional infirmity. It is, therefore, clear that the Division Bench had in its mind the question relating to award of marks under various heads for the purpose of determining the relative merit of the candidates and the Division Bench opined that prescription of marks does not suffer from any Constitutional infirmity. It can, therefore, be said that the Division Bench has up-held the Circular dated 26.2.91 with all scores. (17). The Court further took note of the grounds taken by the State in support of the policy as under:- ``This policy was intended to curb the tendency of seeking transfer by teachers who originally belong to urban areas. The Government had taken notice of the growing tendency amongst the teachers who belong to urban areas to seek their transfer to places near urban areas. The Government had also taken into consideration the fact that the candidates belonging to rural areas are well conversant with the local dialect and language and they are more suitable to serve the schools in the rural areas. (18). After considering the submissions of the parties, the Courts reached the following conclusion:- ``Those who belong to particular rural area, are expected to serve the people of that area in a much more better way than people belonging to different areas with different cultural background and whose language differ substantially. It cannot be ignored that people who are brought up in urban areas by and large, are not interested in serving the rural areas... If by taking cognizance of these factors the State Government has prescribed additional marks for those belonging to Rajasthan, those belonging to urban area of a district and those belong to a rural area of a district, it cannot be said that the Government has acted arbitrarily or has created discrimination between similarly situated persons.......... If by taking cognizance of these factors the State Government has prescribed additional marks for those belonging to Rajasthan, those belonging to urban area of a district and those belong to a rural area of a district, it cannot be said that the Government has acted arbitrarily or has created discrimination between similarly situated persons.......... While examining the constitutional validity of a provision like the one contained in para 7.3 of the impugned Circular dated 26.2.91, the Courts has to bear in mind that a provision made for benefit of the weaker sections of society cannot be declared to be unconstitutional on the ground that it violates the equality clause contained in the Constitution. (19). However, the said judgments have been delivered in respect of the validity of the proviso to rule 17 of the Rules, 1959 and of the Government Order issued under the said proviso. But there is no provision anologous to the said proviso under the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Services Rules, 1971 (hereinafter called ``the Rules, 1971) for making appointment as per the directions issued by the Government from time to time. Moreso, the Government Policy/Government Order/Executive Instruction or Circular must meet the requirement of the mandate of the Constitution of India. In absence of a determination that the entire population of the rural masses in Rajasthan are socially and economically backward, no preference can be given even on that ground, nor is there any basis for providing any bonus marks to any candidate on the ground that he is a resident of the district, for which the advertisement has been issued, or he is a resident of the urban area or rural area. (20). The Constitution Bench of the Honble Supreme Court in B. Venkataramana vs. State of Madras (12), struck down the part of the Government Order for making reservation of posts not only for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates but also for other communities, viz., Muslims, Christans and Non-Hindus holding that such a reservation was repugnant to the provisions of Article 16 of the Constitution. The Honble Apex Court held that it would discriminate against the communities other than those for whom reservation had been provided and no citizen could be held ineligible or surpassed on such ground. (21). A Constitution Bench of the Honble Supreme Court in General Manager, Southern Railway & Anr. The Honble Apex Court held that it would discriminate against the communities other than those for whom reservation had been provided and no citizen could be held ineligible or surpassed on such ground. (21). A Constitution Bench of the Honble Supreme Court in General Manager, Southern Railway & Anr. vs. Rangachari (13), examined the provisions of Article 16 of the Constitution and held that the equal treatment, as provided under Clauses (1) and (2) is mandatory in every case except those covered by Clause (4) or other provisions of the Constitution as Clause (1) or (2) of Article 16 does not prohibit the prescription of reasonable rules for selection to any employment or appointment to any office. The only requirement is that it should provide for equal treatment to all the citizen and must be consistent with the doctrine of equality of opportunity. (22). Again, a Constitution Bench of the Honble Supreme Court in Triloki Nath & Anr. vs. State of J & K. (14), has categorically held that the expression ``backward classes is not used as synonymous with backward communities. The expression ``Class in its ordinary connotation, may mean a homogenous section of people grouped together because of certain likeness or common trades or who are identifiable by some common attribute such as status, rank, occupation, residence in a locality, race, religion or alike. But to meet the requirement of Clause (4) of Article 16 in determining whether a section forms a class, a test solely based on caste or place of birth or residence cannot be adopted for the reason that it would directly offend the Constitution. The Court observed as under:- ``The members of the entire caste or community may, in a social, economic and educational scale of values at a given time, be backward and may on that account be treated as a backward class, but that is not because they are members of a caste or community but because they form a class. (23). The Court observed as under:- ``The members of the entire caste or community may, in a social, economic and educational scale of values at a given time, be backward and may on that account be treated as a backward class, but that is not because they are members of a caste or community but because they form a class. (23). The Honble Apex Court further held that a policy decision must be based on certain data or material and mere injunction to the authority concerned to make appointment to a public post, keeping in view the policy of ``adequate representation of such element as were not adequately represented in the service is not a provision making reference of appointment or post in favour of backward class and thus, is impermissible as such preference may be made only in favour of backwardness of certain classes. The Court further held as under:- ``When the State proceeds not to make reservation in favour of any backward class but distributes the total number of posts or appointments on the basis of community or place of residence, no reservation permitted by clause (4) of Article 16 can be said to have been made. In fact, the State policy... was a policy not of reservation of some appointment or posts: it was a scheme of distribution of all the post community-wise. Distribution of appointment or promotions made in implementation of that State Policy is contrary to the Constitutional guarantee under Article 16 (1) and (2) and is not saved by clause (4). (24). An identical question, as is involved in the instant case, was considered by the Honble Supreme Court in State of Maharastra vs. Raj Kumar (15), wherein the Government Order providing for giving preference/weightage to the persons having aptitude to work in rural areas and the provision that the candidates coming from rural areas and who passed S.S.C. Examination from rural areas, would deem to be rural candidates and given weightage, was held to be invalid. The Honble Supreme Court observed as under:- ``This rule, however, when translated into action, does not seem to fulfil or carry out the object sought to be achieved because as the Rules stand, any person who may not have lived in a village at all, can appear in S.S.C. Examination from a village and yet becomes eligible for selection in the competitive examination. Thus, there is no nexus between the classification made, assuming for the purpose of this case that such a classification is unreasonable and the object which is sought to be achieved as a result of which the rule is clearly violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (25). The Court further held that a rule placing a rural candidate in advantageous position by a sheer incident of his passing the S.S.C. Examination from the rural area, or being a candidate from rural area, and as it prefers an advantage over all others by arbitrary addition of 10% of marks, which has no rational, nexus or connection with the object of getting the best candidate suitable adapted to the rural area and such a rule cannot be held to be a valid. (26). The said judgment was considered, approved and followed by the Honble Supreme Court in V.N.Sunanda Reddy & Ors. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (16), wherein the Honble Apex Court struck down the Government Order providing for 5% weightage to the candidates who had passed the examination in Telgu language for the public employment, being arbitrary and unconstitutional for the reason that the rule did not have any rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved, and providing any weightage on such a consideration was found to be violative of Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 16 of the Constitution. All the candidates possessing the minimum requisite educational qualification and otherwise eligible, who applied in response to an advertisement, had to be assessed on the basis of their relative merit and providing for such a weightage on the consideration of medium of examination would change the criteria of selection and relative merit would stand frustrated and would become otiose. A candidate by gaining weightage on the ground of medium of examination, cannot be permitted to steal a march over other meritorious candidates standing higher up in the merit. The Apex Court also referred to the judgment of Nine Judges Bench of the Honble Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India & ors. (Mandal Commission) (17), wherein it was held that it has to be borne in mind that ``weightage may be given only as per the Constitutional sanction and not beyond it. (27). In Dr. Pradeep Jain vs. Union of India & Ors. (Mandal Commission) (17), wherein it was held that it has to be borne in mind that ``weightage may be given only as per the Constitutional sanction and not beyond it. (27). In Dr. Pradeep Jain vs. Union of India & Ors. (18), the Honble Apex Court, though dealing with a case of admission in post graduation in Medical College, has held that the issue of public employment should not be confused with the admission in educational institutions as they both stand on entirely different footings and are governed by different provisions and considerations. In case of public employment, the mandate of the Constitution has to be strictly adhered to. The Court observed that so far as admission to educational institution, such as Medical Colleges, are concerned, Article 16 has no application. If, therefore, there is any residence-requirement for admission to a Medical College in a State, it cannot be condemned as unconstitutional on the ground of violation of Article 16 (2). The only provision of Constitution, on touch stone of which such residence requirement is to be tested, is Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court further observed as under:- ``The entire country is taken as one nation with one citizenship and every effort of the Constitution makers is directed towards emphasizing, maintaining and preserving the unity and integrity of the nation. Now if India is one nation and there is only one citizenship, namely, citizen of India, and every citizen has a right to move freely throughout the territory of India and to reside and settle in any part of India, irrespective of the place where he is born or the language which he speaks or the religion which he professes and he is guaranteed freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the territory of India and is entitled to equality before the law and equal protection of law with other citizens in every part of the territory of India, it is difficult to see how a citizen having his permanent home in Tamil Nadu or speaking Tamil Language can be regarded as an outsider in Uttar Pradesh or a citizen having his permanent home in Maharastra or speaking Marathi language be regarded as an outsider in Karnataka. He must be held entitled to the same rights as a citizen having his permanent home in Uttar Pradesh or Karnataka, as the case may be. He must be held entitled to the same rights as a citizen having his permanent home in Uttar Pradesh or Karnataka, as the case may be. To regard him as an outsider would be to deny him his constitutional rights and to de-recognise the essential unity and integrity of the country by treating it as if it were a mere conglomeration of independent States. Article 15, Clauses (1) and (2) bar discrimination on grounds not only of religion, caste or sex but also of place of birth. Article 16 (2) goes further and provides that no citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them be ineligible for or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office under the State. Therefore, it would appear that residential requirement would be unconstitutional as a condition of eligibility for employment or appointment to an office under the State which also covers an office under any local or other authority within the State or any corporation, such as, a public sector corporation which is an instrumentality or agency of the State. (28). Thus, it was clearly held that the requirement of residence in a particular place, would be unconstitutional as a condition of eligibility or for giving any weightage for employment under the State. (29). In the State of U.P. & ors. vs. Pradip Tandon & Ors. (19), the Honble Apex Court held that educational backwardness is ascertained with reference to various factors where people have traditional apathy for education on account of social and environmental conditions or occupational handicaps. Backwardness is also judged on economic basis as each region has its own miserable possibility for the maintenance of human members, standards of living and fixed property. The Court further observed as under:- ``80% of the population of the State of Uttar Pradesh in rural areas cannot be said to be a homogenous class by itself. They are not of the same kind. Their occupation is different. Their standards are different. Their lives are different. Population cannot be a class by itself. Rural element does not make it a class. To suggest that the rural areas are socially and economically backward is to have reservation for the majority of the State... Special need for medical-men in rural area will not make the people in rural area socially and educationally backward classes of citizens..... Population cannot be a class by itself. Rural element does not make it a class. To suggest that the rural areas are socially and economically backward is to have reservation for the majority of the State... Special need for medical-men in rural area will not make the people in rural area socially and educationally backward classes of citizens..... The reservation for rural area cannot be sustained on the ground that the rural area represents socially and educationally backward classes of citizens. This reservation appears to have been made for the majority population of the State. 80% of the population of the State cannot be a homogeneous class. Poverty in rural areas cannot be the basis of classification to support reservation for rural areas......... (30). The Apex Court held that no reservation can be made on the basis of place of birth or residence. (31). In a recent judgment, the Constitution Bench of the Honble Supreme Court in Dr. Priti Srivsatava & Anr. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (20), has held that in no circumstances, even while according reservation to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes candidates in public employment,``the maintenance of efficiency of administration has to be kept in sight and the concept of compensatory discrimination cannot be stretched to the extent that it adversely affects the efficiency of administration. (32). The Constitution Bench of the Honble Supreme Court in Ajit Singh & Anr. vs. State of Punjab (21), considered the scope of Clause (1) of Article 16 in the case of roster-point promotion and held that even in that scheme, the mandate of Clause (1) of Article 16 cannot be over looked and a rosterpoint promotee cannot claim seniority over general category candidate in promotion category unless he is further promoted before the promotion of general category candidate. (33). Mere educational backwardness or the social backwardness does not, by itself, make the class of citizens backward. In order to be identified as belonging to such a class, one must be both educationally and socially backward. Backward classes must be comparable to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. (Vide M.R. Balaji vs. State of Mysore (22); State of Andhra Pradesh vs. P. Sagar (23); and Janki Prasad Parimoo & ors. vs. State of J & K. & Ors. (24). (34). In Dr. Backward classes must be comparable to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. (Vide M.R. Balaji vs. State of Mysore (22); State of Andhra Pradesh vs. P. Sagar (23); and Janki Prasad Parimoo & ors. vs. State of J & K. & Ors. (24). (34). In Dr. Jagdish Saran vs. Union of India (25), the Apex Court held as under:- ``If equality of opportunity for every person in the country is the Constitutional guarantee, the candidate who gets more marks than another, is entitled to preference... merit must be the test when choosing the best, according to this rule of equal chance for equal marks....... (35). Therefore,the object being selection of the meritorious and deserving, tilting of the scale against the more meritorious by providing for weightage for being resident of the same district or being an agristic, is arbitrary, unreasonable and invalid. The incident, on the basis of which the bonus marks are provided, is inherent and uncertain but has the potentiality of converting the merit into de-merit and de-merit into merit. Such a provision must not be countenanced and deserves to be emphathetically rejected. Giving any weightage which has no relation to and connection with the merit and excellence of a candidate, is undesired and Court cannot have any hesitation to declare it invalid for the reason that it will out-strip the more meritorious candidates. There is no guarantee that a person belonging to the same district for which the posts have been advertised, or a resident of a rural area, would work with zeal and enthusiasm and would spread education in rural area. It depends upon the nature of the person and his convictions and self-imposed discipline. Such expectations are not based on any valid reason and if ``the best potential in these field is cold-shouldered for populist considerations garbed as `weightage, the victims in the long run may be the people themselves. Thus, the explanation furnished by the respondents in support of the policy decision can not be said to be valid and the Circular has been issued in flagrant violation of the Constitutional mandate and is ultravires. (36). The judgments of the Division Benches of this Court in Smt. Baljit Kaur and Arvind Kaur Kochar (supra) do not lay down correct law as the same run counter to the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court as referred to above. (37). (36). The judgments of the Division Benches of this Court in Smt. Baljit Kaur and Arvind Kaur Kochar (supra) do not lay down correct law as the same run counter to the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court as referred to above. (37). The judgment in Smt. Baljit Kaur (supra) may be an authority only to the extent that the Legislature could amend the rules enabling the State Government to issue directions. However, it cannot be said that the validity of a Clause providing for preferential treatment to candidates on the ground of residence had been upheld therein as there existed no discussion on the anvil of the Constitutional provisions. Thus, on the said issue, the judgment remains per incurium. (38). Undoubtedly, the Executive Instructions can be issued even in absence of enabling provision by the Competent Authority but the same cannot be inconsistent with the statutory provisions or the Constitutional mandate. In Arvind Kumar Kochar (supra), the Division Bench has relied very heavily upon the said judgment and upheld the validity of similar Clause providing for preferential treatment on the ground of residence. The reasoning given by the Division Bench cannot be held to be in consonance with the Constitutional provisions. (39). The grounds taken by the State that the persons coming from rural area would serve the rural area better, or it will reduce the burden of the executive from persistent demand of the employees belonging to urban areas to post them near the urban areas, are not based on any sound reasoning, rather the same reflect on the inefficiency of the administration and it cannot be held to serve any laudable object. Undoubtedly, what Article 16(2) prohibits is that the discrimination should not be made only and only on the grounds mentioned therein. This Clause does not prohibit the State from making discrimination on the ground other than those mentioned therein, or the grounds mentioned therein coupled with other consideration. (Vide Yusuf Abdul Aziz vs. State of Bombay & Anr. (26); Javed Niaz Beg & Anr. vs. Union of India & Anr. (27); and AIR India vs. Naresh Meerza & Ors. (28). But the grounds taken by the State in Arvind Kumar Kochar (supra) or in the instant case, do not stand the test of Article 16 of the Constitution at all. (40). (26); Javed Niaz Beg & Anr. vs. Union of India & Anr. (27); and AIR India vs. Naresh Meerza & Ors. (28). But the grounds taken by the State in Arvind Kumar Kochar (supra) or in the instant case, do not stand the test of Article 16 of the Constitution at all. (40). Thus, in view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the rural masses, which form 80% of the total population of this country, do not constitute homogeneous class in itself, nor can they be treated as a class. Any classification on the ground of being `rural or `urban is not permissible in our Constitutional Scheme. The object to be achieved by the Circular that it would attract the rural people to get education or after giving employment, to serve the rural population, cannot be achieved by giving those candidates any weightage. In public employment, every applicant knows that transfer is an incident of service and if he joins the service, he can be asked to serve in rural area and if he joins it voluntarily and willingly, he cannot refuse to serve in rural area, as in case of non-compliance of transfer/posting order, he would expose himself to the disciplinary proceedings under the relevant Statutory Rules. (Vide Gujrat Electricity Board vs. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani (29). Even to give any bonus marks to urban candidate, has no nexus to the object to be achieved. There can be no ground of preference/ weightage/ advantage by any means on the ground of place of birth or residence as it would be violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution and, thus, void. (41). In the instant case, it could not be pointed out by the learned counsel for the parties as under what authority of law the said Circular has been issued, or what wa the data or material, on the basis of which the Government had taken a policy decision and what were the contants of the public policy. Thus, even in a limited jurisdiction of judicial review of a public policy, we have no constrains to holds that such a policy cannot successfully stand the test of reasonableness or doctrine of equality and, therefore, is bad. Thus, even in a limited jurisdiction of judicial review of a public policy, we have no constrains to holds that such a policy cannot successfully stand the test of reasonableness or doctrine of equality and, therefore, is bad. In Ram Ganesh Tripathi vs. State of U.P. (30), the Honble Apex Court held that any order which is not consistent with the statutory rules, deserves to be quashed being ultra-vires. (42). The criteria laid down as per the policy decision provided for 10% weigh-tage to the candidates of the district for which the posts are advertised and a further weightage of 5% for an agristic. The merit list has to be prepared according to the marks obtained by him throughout his academic career. A candidate who secured throughout First Division, it could secure 64% marks in selection he would be superseded by a candidate belonging to rural area even if latter secured only 50% marks by getting 15% bonus marks, and even by a candidate belonging to urban area, who could secure 55% marks in selection. The merit of the candidate is converted into de-merit merely by an incident that he is not a resident of the district for which the posts have been advertised or an agristic. Unfortunately merit of the suitable candidate is being ignored on unconstitutional and irrelevant consideration, which may lead to total subservience and further to a large deep-malaise in the efficiency of the administration. It also leaves meritorious candidates frustrated and demoralised. Mutilation of the country on such irrelevant consideration is not permissible as it would run counter to the principle of equality which clearly provides that no person can have any weightage/ preference on the ground of place of birth or residence. The doctrine of equality enshrined under Article 16 of the Constitution provides for a dynamic concept and it cannot be let loose on considerations not permissible under the Constitutional provisions. In public employment, there has to be an effort to select most meritorious / excellent candidates. The only limitation which this criteria can be subjected to is the reservations provided under the Constitution. The State has already protected the interests of not only of the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other backward classes but also of women. In public employment, there has to be an effort to select most meritorious / excellent candidates. The only limitation which this criteria can be subjected to is the reservations provided under the Constitution. The State has already protected the interests of not only of the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other backward classes but also of women. This kind of weightage would lead to a complete go-bye to the merit of the candidates and would seriously effect the efficiency of administration/ teaching. The concept of equality cannot be permitted to be converted into an empty slogans, nor the State can be permitted to render the said doctrine nugatory on any unconstitutional criteria. (43). In view of the above, we answer the reference holding that any kind of weightage/ advantage in public employment in any State Service is not permissible on the ground of place of birth or residence and the Clause in the Circular providing for bonus marks on the ground of being resident of the same district, for which the posts are advertised, or on the ground of being a resident of urban area or rural area, is void ab initio. (44). Instead of sending the matter to the appropriate bench, we think it proper to dispose of this petition with a direction that no relief can be granted to the petitioners as they could not succeed to get the place in the merit list even by getting 10 bonus marks being residents of urban area, for which they are certainly not entitled. More so, the petitioners have not impleaded any person from the select list, not even the last selected candidate. Thus, no relief can be granted to them inspite of the fact that the appointments made in conformity of the impugned Circular have not been in consonance with law. However, we clarify that any appointment made earlier shall not be affected by this judgment and it would have prospective application..