JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal has arisen out of a litigation which relates to preparation of a select-list for giving appointment as Teacher Gr. Ill at Panchayats and Zila Parishads level by awarding 10% and 5% bonus marks on the basis of residence as per classification adopted by the Select Committee. However, the policy of awarding bonus marks on the basis of residence alone was held to be ultra-vires Article 15 of the Constitution by this Court in its Full Bench decision dated 21st Oct., 1999 in Deepak Suthar & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., Writ Petition No. 1917/95 : 2000(1) WLC (Raj.) 1 , in which i directions were issued to prepare select list afresh by excluding the bonus marks and consider candidates for appointment in accordance with fresh merit list prepared. 3. A learned Single Judge of this Court in the writ petition, out of which this appeal has arisen, has after noticing the statement made by one Shri C.L. Daima, Working as Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Chittorgarh that after receiving the order of this Court on 15.11.99 no appointment has been issued to any of the candidates whose names appeared in the select-list after giving bonus marks, disposed of the writ petition by observing that the vacancies left out have to be filled up by the respondents strictly in t accordance with law and they were left at liberty to act accordingly. The appellant is aggrieved by this order, inter-alias on the ground that no mandamus has been given to offer an appointment. 4. At the time of hearing, when the matter came up for admission on 7th March, 2002, an affidavit was filed before this Court stating that appointments have been made in terms of the Govt. order dated 25.11.99 and have been issued to the persons who were previously working on contract basis, however such appointments have been made subject to the decision of the petitions which were pending in the Court. 5. Noticing the apparent contradiction in the statements made before the learned Single Judge and the affidavit filed here, this Court has directed the parties to file fresh affidavits to clariry the actual position of appointments after 29.11.99. 5. Noticing the apparent contradiction in the statements made before the learned Single Judge and the affidavit filed here, this Court has directed the parties to file fresh affidavits to clariry the actual position of appointments after 29.11.99. The respondents have filed additional affidavit stating that there is typographical error in the earlier affidavit filed by Shri Daima in which order dated 29th Nov., 1999 was incorrectly mentioned whereas the correct date is 29th Oct., 1999 when the tentative list published on 26.10.1999 was finalised and it was asserted that no bonus marks were given to the persons who had been appointed vide Annex. R/1. 6. Be that as it may, since the filing of this appeal the matter has finally been decided by Supreme Court by issuing directions in respect of relief to be granted to the petitioners who had moved in respect of the said select list in Kailash Chand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 447/02, with other connected appeals decided on July 30, 2002 , the Apex Court has cleared the deck about the controversies arising in respect of appointments to be offered in pursuance of the judgment of this Court holding award of bonus marks to be invalid and directing to prepare a fresh select list. The Apex Court has made the following directions : "Having due regard to the rival contentions adverted to above and keeping in view the factual scenario and the need to balance the competing claims in the light of acceptance of prospective overruling in principle, we consider it just and proper to confine the relief only to the petitioners who moved the High Court and to make appointments made on or after 18.11.1999 in any of the districts subject to the claims of the petitioners. Accordingly we direct : 1. The claims of the writ petitioners should be considered afresh in the light of this judgment vis a vis the candidates appointed on or after 18.11.99 or those in the select list who are yet to be appointed. On such consideration, if those writ petitions are found to have superior merit in case the bonus marks of 10% and/or 5% are excluded, if necessary, by displacing the candidates appointed on or after 18.11.1999. 2. The appointments made upto 17.11.1999 need not be reopened and re-considered in the light of the law laid down in this judgment. On such consideration, if those writ petitions are found to have superior merit in case the bonus marks of 10% and/or 5% are excluded, if necessary, by displacing the candidates appointed on or after 18.11.1999. 2. The appointments made upto 17.11.1999 need not be reopened and re-considered in the light of the law laid down in this judgment. 3. Writ Petition No. 542/2000 filed in this Court under Article 32 is hereby dismissed as it was filed nearly one year after the judgment of the High Court and no explanation has been tendered for not approaching the High Court under Article 226 at an earlier point of time. Before parting, we must say that we have moulded the relief as above on a consideration of special facts and circumstances of this case acting within the frame-work of powers vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution. In so far as the relief has been granted or modified in the manner aforesaid, this judgment may not be treated as a binding precedent in any case that may arise in future." From the aforesaid, it is apparent that all the writ petitions which were pending before the High Court claiming relief on the basis of implementation of the policy of giving bonus marks on the ground of residence in the district concerned, by issuing directions under Article 142 had confined the relief only to the petitioners who moved the High Court and by issuing directions to make appointment on or after 18.11.99 in any of the districts subject to the claims of the petitioners before the High Court. As the petitioner-appellant in this appeal Is squarely covered by the aforesaid directions and no further directions are required to be issued except to clarify that the petitioner's case shall also be considered and dealt with by the respondents in terms of the directions issued by the Supreme Court as aforesaid. 7. It is implicit in the aforesaid direction that the respondents publish a select list of the petitioners vis a vis the persons who had been appointed until 19.11.1999 but were awaiting the appointment on the basis of the said select-list for each district. The said select list may be published within four weeks and on demand a copy be supplied to the petitioner. The said select list may be published within four weeks and on demand a copy be supplied to the petitioner. As a result of rearrangement of merit order in select list any person below petitioner's merit has been offered appointment after D. date, the petitioner's grievance shall be remedied. 8. The appeal, accordingly, stands disposed of.Appeal Disposed of Accordingly. *******