Judgment P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.—Leave to appeal granted. Consequently, the appeals are taken on file and being disposed of by this common Judgment. 2. The selections held and the consequential appointments made to the posts of primary school teachers by the Zila Parishads of various districts in the State of Rajasthan during the year 1998-1999 have given rise to these appeals. The full Bench judgment of Rajasthan High Court dated 18.11.1999 in Kailash Chand Sharma (Petitioner in first of the appeals corresponding to SLP (C) No. 1824/2000) Vs. State of Rajasthan and connected Writ Petitions are under challenge in these appeals apart from the Division Bench Judgment in State of Rajasthan Vs. Naval Kishore Sharma. The full Bench followed its earlier judgment in Deepak Kumar Suthar Vs. State of Rajasthan (W.P. (C) No. 1917/1995) and disposed of the Writ Petitions on the same terms as in the previous full Bench reference case. At the outset, it may be stated that the judgment of the full Bench rendered on October 21, 1999 in Deepak Kumar s case (reported in 1999(2), RLR 692) was in relation to the selection of teachers Grade II and Grade III which was pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Director, Primary and Secondary Education during the year 1995. The said posts of teachers Grade II and Grade III are borne in State cadre under the administrative control of Education Department of the State Government. The second full Bench judgment, as already noted, was in the context of selections to the posts of teachers districtwise coming within the fold of respective Zila Parishads. In the impugned judgment the full Bench, however, did not see any impediment in applying the ratio of the previous judgment. The full Bench observed that "merely because the employment relates to the Panchayats, that does not make any difference in the light of the law laid down in the full Bench judgment aforementioned". What was called in question by the unsuccessful candidates. Who filed their applications and appeared before the o. 1 Selection Boards was the award of bonus marks to the applicants belonging to the District and the rural areas of the district concerned. The first full Bench (in the case of Deepak Kumar Vs. State) held that award of such bonus marks was unconstitutional and the relevant clause in the circular providing for bonus marks was void. The first full Bench (in the case of Deepak Kumar Vs. State) held that award of such bonus marks was unconstitutional and the relevant clause in the circular providing for bonus marks was void. The learned Judges observed that ‘‘this kind of weightage would give a complete go-bye to the merit of the candidates and would seriously affect the efficiency of administration/teaching". The full Bench answered 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 or on the ground of being a resident of urban area or rural area....’’. Having so declared the law, the full Bench gave the following directions in the concluding para of the judgment : "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." 3. It is this decision that was followed by the full Bench in the impugned judgment and the batch of Writ Petitions were disposed of accordingly. Against this judgment SLPs were filed by the original writ petitioners (six in number) as well as the State Government and the Zila Parishad. 4. After the full Bench judgment one more batch of writ petitions came to be disposed of by a learned single Judge of the High Court on 26.2.2001 directing a fresh merit list to be prepared in respect of the candidates who were not appointed on or before 21.10.1999 without regard to the bonus marks. Appeals against this judgment were filed by the State Government and other authorities. The Division Bench by its order dated 13.4.2001 dismissed those appeals. Appeals against this judgment were filed by the State Government and other authorities. The Division Bench by its order dated 13.4.2001 dismissed those appeals. Questioning the same, SLPs were filed by the State as well as certain affected parties who were granted leave to appeal. 5. Coming to the specific facts relevant to the present appeals, at the threshold, we should make a reference to the circular issued by the Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj bearing the date 10.6.1998, which deals with the subject of procedure to be followed for appointment to the vacant posts of teachers during the years 1998-1999 by way of direct recruitment. This circular was issued in supercession of earlier orders on the subject. It is seen from the circular that 5847 posts were sanctioned by the Finance Department of the Government and the appointments were to be made to the vacancies for which sanction was accorded. The Chief Executive Officers-cum-Secretaries of Zila Parishads were required to issue the advertisements by 15.6.1998 and to have them published in the newspapers by 20.6.1998. According to the schedule given in the circular, the process of issuing appointment orders was to be completed by 14.8.1998. That it did not actually happen is a different matter. The circular which is quite comprehensive deals with various aspects. We are only concerned with the following provisions in the circular having a bearing on the determination of merit of the applicant/candidate. It reads as follows: "This year, determination of merit has been amended and determination of merit will be done as follows:- 1. Marks for educational qualification:- S.No. Qualification Weightage 1. Secondary Examination 50 2. Senior Secondary Examination 20 3. S.T.C./B.Ed. 30 II. Fixation of Bonus marks for domiciles Domiciles of Rajasthan - 10 marks Resident of District - 10 marks Resident of Rural area of Distt. - 5 marks 6. The other criteria evolved for award of marks under the head ‘academic achievements’, bonus marks for sports etc. need not be quoted. More particularly, we are concerned with Para II (supra) i.e., bonus marks for domiciles’. It may be mentioned that there is no dispute in so far as the award of bonus marks to the domiciles of the State of Rajasthan. need not be quoted. More particularly, we are concerned with Para II (supra) i.e., bonus marks for domiciles’. It may be mentioned that there is no dispute in so far as the award of bonus marks to the domiciles of the State of Rajasthan. The controversy is only with regard to Items 2 and 3 i.e. 10 marks for residence in the District concerned and 5 marks for residence in rural areas of the concerned district. It may be noted that there was no written examination. The interview was of a formal nature as there was no assessment of comparative merit therein. 7. The above Circular is traceable to the power conferred on the State Government under the proviso to Rule 273 occurring in Chapter XII of the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Rules 1996, according to which the selection for various posts shall be made in accordance with the general directions given by the State Government from time to time in this respect. 8. In order to give effect to the orders of the State Government the Zila Parishads issued advertisements round about 15th June, 1998 calling for applications. It is seen from the advertisement issued by the Zila Parishad, Barmer, the following qualifications are mentioned therein:- "1. Senior secondary under New (10+2) scheme from Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan or Higher secondary or equivalent under the old scheme or secondary school certificate or equivalent from secondary school Education Board Rajasthan with 5 subjects including Sanskrit, Maths, English and Hindi." 9. Some of the candidates hailing from different districts or towns who were not eligible for bonus marks (10+5) filed the Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution questioning the circular of the State Government (Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department) prescribing the bonus marks as afore-mentioned and seeking appropriate directions for their consideration without reference to bonus marks. This was done after they appeared for formal interviews. By then, the select lists were published in some Districts and in some other Districts, though they were presumably prepared, further action was kept in abeyance for certain reasons, including the pendency of the Writ Petitions. When the matter came up for hearing before a learned single Judge, he felt that earlier Division Bench decisions of the Court in Arvind Kumar Gochar and Baljeet Kaur s case needed reconsideration. When the matter came up for hearing before a learned single Judge, he felt that earlier Division Bench decisions of the Court in Arvind Kumar Gochar and Baljeet Kaur s case needed reconsideration. Accordingly, the learned single Judge suggested to the learned Chief Justice to constitute full Bench. At the same time, he stayed the final selection pursuant to various advertisements involved in the writ petition for three months in the hope that in the meanwhile the larger Bench will decide the issue. That is how the full Bench was constituted. To recapitulate the sequence, it may be noted that the first full Bench decision in Deepak Kumar s case relating to appointments in the Education Department was decided on 21.10.1999. The second full Bench dealing with the cases on hand gave its verdict on 18.11.1999. During the interregnum between the first full Bench judgment and the second full Bench decision, it appears that appointment orders were issued to the selected candidates in some of the districts. The process of issuing appointment letters seems to have continued even after the second full Bench judgment i.e. after 18.11.1999. 10. In this factual background, the S.L.Ps came to be filed in this Court. These who have filed S.L.Ps fall under four categories: (1) Those filed by the original writ petitioners who were aggrieved by the direction in the judgment either confining its application prospectively or denying relief on the ground that writ petitioners would not have been selected even if 10 or 15 bonus marks are excluded. The appellant in the first of these appeals - Kailash Chand Sharma-belongs to this category. He hails from the district of Karouli and he applied for the job in Barmer district. (2) Those candidates who have not been offered appointment, though selected on the strength of the weightage accorded for residents of the district and rural areas comprised therein. (3) Those selected on the basis of weightage and appointed after 21-10-99, whose appointments were likely to be cancelled in view of the directions in the impugned judgments. (4) Official respondents in the Writ Petitions, viz., State of Rajasthan and Zila Parishads. 11. In categories 2 and 3 above, persons who were not parties in the High Court have sought permission of this Court to file SLPs, which was granted. 12. (4) Official respondents in the Writ Petitions, viz., State of Rajasthan and Zila Parishads. 11. In categories 2 and 3 above, persons who were not parties in the High Court have sought permission of this Court to file SLPs, which was granted. 12. The first and foremost question that would arise for consideration in this group of appeals is, whether the circular dated 10.6.1998 providing for bonus marks for residents of the concerned district and the rural areas within that district is constitutionally valid tested on the touch stone of Article 16 read with Article 14 of the Constitution? It is on this aspect, learned senior counsel appearing for the candidates concerned have argued at length with admirable clarity, making copious reference to several pronouncements of this Court. There can be little doubt that the impugned circular is the product of the policy decision taken by the State Government. Even then, as rightly pointed out by the High Court, such decision has to pass the test of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. If the policy decision, which in the present case has the undoubted effect of deviating from the normal and salutary rule of selection based on merit is subversive of the doctrine of equality, it cannot sustain. It should be free from the vice of arbitrariness and conform to the well-settled norms both positive and negative underlying Articles 14 and 16, which together with Article 15 form part of the Constitutional code of equality. 13. In order to justify the preferential treatment accorded to residents of the district and the rural areas of the district in the matter of selection to the posts of teachers, the State has come forward with certain pleas either before the High Court or before this Court. Some of these pleas are pressed into service by the learned counsel appearing for the parties who are the possible beneficiaries under the impugned order of the Govt. Such pleas taken by the State Government and from which support is sought to be drawn by the individual parties concerned will be referred to a little later. 14. Before proceeding further we should steer clear of a misconception that surfaced in the course of arguments advanced on behalf of the State and some of the parties. Such pleas taken by the State Government and from which support is sought to be drawn by the individual parties concerned will be referred to a little later. 14. Before proceeding further we should steer clear of a misconception that surfaced in the course of arguments advanced on behalf of the State and some of the parties. Based on the decisions which countenanced geographical classification for certain weighty reasons such as socio-economic backwardness of the area for the purpose of admissions to professional colleges, it has been suggested that residence within a district or rural areas of that district could be a valid basis for classification for the purpose of public employment as well. We have no doubt that such a sweeping argument which has the overtones of parochialism is liable to be rejected on the plain terms of Article 16(2) and in the light of Art. 16(3). An argument of this nature files in the face of the peremptory language of Article 16 (2) and runs counter to our constitutional ethos founded on unity and integrity of the nation. Attempts to prefer candidates of a local area in the State were nipped in the bud by this Court since long past. We would like to reiterate that residence by itself - be it be within a State, region, district or lesser area within a district cannot be a ground to accord preferential treatment or reservation, save as provided in Article 16(3). It is not possible to compartmentalize the State into Districts with a view to offer employment to the residents of that District on a preferential basis. At this juncture it is appropriate to ­undertake a brief analysis of Article 16. 15. Article 16 which under clause (1) guarantees equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State reinforces that guarantee by prohibiting under clause (2) discrimination on the grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them. Be it noted that in the allied Article-Article 15, the word residence is omitted from the opening clause prohibiting discrimination on specified grounds. Be it noted that in the allied Article-Article 15, the word residence is omitted from the opening clause prohibiting discrimination on specified grounds. Clauses (3) and (4) of Article 16 dilutes the rigour of clause (2) by (i) conferring an enabling power on the Parliament to make a law prescribing the residential requirement within the State in regard to a class or classes of employment or appointment to an office under the State and (ii) by enabling the State to make a provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which is not adequately represented in the services under the State. The newly introduced clauses (4-A) and (4-B), apart from clause (5) of Article 16 are the other provisions by which the embargo laid down in Article 16(2) in somewhat absolute terms is lifted to meet certain specific situations with a view to promote the overall objective underlying the Article. Here, we should make note of two things: firstly, discrimination only on the ground of residence (or place of birth) in so far as public employment is concerned is prohibited, secondly, Parliament is empowered to make the law prescribing residential requirement within a State or Union Territory, as the case may be, in relation to a class or classes of employment. That means, in the absence of parliamentary law, even the prescription of requirement as to residence within the State is a taboo. Coming to the first aspect, it must be noticed that the prohibitory mandate under Article 16(2) is not attracted if the alleged discrimination is on grounds not merely related to residence, but the factum of residence is only taken into account in addition to other relevant factors. This, in effect, is the import of the expression only . 16. Let us now turn our attention to some of the decided cases. As far back as in 1969 a Constitution Bench of this Court in A.V.S. Narasimha Rao Vs. State of A.P. ( 1970 (1) SCR 115 ) declared that the law enacted by the Parliament in pursuance of Clause (3) of Article 16 making a special provision for domicile within the Telegana region of the State of Andhra Pradesh for the purpose of public employment within that region and the rules made thereunder as ultra vires the Constitution. State of A.P. ( 1970 (1) SCR 115 ) declared that the law enacted by the Parliament in pursuance of Clause (3) of Article 16 making a special provision for domicile within the Telegana region of the State of Andhra Pradesh for the purpose of public employment within that region and the rules made thereunder as ultra vires the Constitution. Pursuant to the enabling power conferred under Section 3 of the Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act, Rules were made making a person ineligible for appointment to a post within the Telengana area under the State Government of A.P. or to a post under a local authority in the said area unless he has been continuously residing within the said area for a period of not less than 15 years immediately preceding the prescribed date. The Government issued an order relieving all ‘non-domicile’ persons appointed on or after 1.11.1956 to certain categories of posts reserved for domiciles of Telengana under the A.P. public employment (Requirement as to Residence) Rules. Such incumbent of post was to be employed in the Andhra region by creating a supernumerary post, if necessary. This legislative and executive action was struck down by this Court. After referring to Article 16, the Court observed: ‘‘The intention here is to make every office or employment open and available to every citizen, and inter alia to make offices or employment in one part of India open to citizens in all other parts of India. The third clause then makes an exception......................... The legislative power to create residential qualification for employment is thus exclusively conferred on Parliament. Parliament can make any law, which prescribes any requirement as to residence within the State or Union territory prior to employment or appointment to an office in that State or Union territory. Two questions arise here, firstly, whether Parliament, while prescribing the requirement, may prescribe the requirement of residence in a particular part of the State and, secondly, whether Parliament can delegate this function by making a declaration and leaving the details to be filled in by the rule making power of the Central and State Governments." The argument that a sweeping power was given to the Parliament to make any law as regards residential requirement was repelled thus: "By the first clause equality of opportunity in employment or appointment to an office is guaranteed. By the second clause, there can be no discrimination, among other things, on the ground of residence. Realising, however, that sometimes local sentiments may have to be respected or sometimes an inroad from more advanced States into less developed States may have to be prevented, and a residential qualification may, therefore, have to be prescribed, the exception in clause (3) was made. Even so, that clause spoke of residence within the State. The claim of Mr. Setalvad that Parliament can make a provision regarding residence in any particular part of a State would render the general prohibition lose all its meaning. The words any requirement cannot be read to warrant something which could have been said more specifically. These words bear upon the kind of residence or its duration rather than its location within the State. We accept the argument of Mr. Gupte that the Constitution, as it stands, speaks of a whole State as the venue for residential qualification and it is impossible to think that the Constituent Assembly was thinking of residence in Districts, Taluqas, cities, towns or villages. The fact that this clause is an exception and came as an amendment must dictate that a narrow construction upon the exception should be placed as indeed the debates in the Constituent Assembly also seem to indicate." 17. Thus, this Court was not inclined to place too wide an interpretation on Art. 16(3), keeping broadly in view the constitutional philosophy. 18. In Pradeep Jain Vs. Union of India ( AIR 1984 SC 1420 ) though the Court was concerned with the question whether residential requirement or institutional preference in admissions to technical and medical colleges can be constitutionally permissible in the light of Article 15(1) and 15(4) Bhagwati, J. speaking for the Court expressed his prima facie opinion thus as regards residential requirement in the field of public employment: "We may point out at this stage that though Art. 15(2) bars discrimination on grounds, not only of religion, race, caste or sex but also on place of birth, Art. 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 State employment. So far as employment under the State or any local or other authority is concerned, no citizen can be given preference nor can any discrimination be practised against him on the ground only of residence. It would thus appear that residential requirement would be unconstitutional as a condition of eligibility for employment or appointment to an office under the State....... ..................... But, Art. 16(3) provides an exception to this rule by laying down that Parliament may make a law "prescribing, in regard to a class or classes of employment or appointment to an office under the government of, or any local or other authority in, a State or Union Territory, any requirement as to residence within that State or Union territory prior to such employment or appointment." Parliament alone is given the right to enact an exception to the ban on discrimination based on residence and that too only with respect to positions within the employment of a State Government. But even so, without any parliamentary enactment permitting them to do so many of the State Governments have been pursuing policies of localism since long and these policies are now quite widespread. Parliament has in fact exercised little control over these policies formulated by the States. The only action, which Parliament has taken under Art. 16(3) giving it the right to set a residence requirement has been the enactment of the Public Employment (requirement as to Residence) Act, 1957................... There is therefore, at present no parliamentary enactment permitting preferential policies based on residence requirement except in the case of Andhra Pradesh, Manipur, Tripura and Himachal Pradesh where the Central government has been given the right to issue directions setting residence requirements in the subordinate services. Yet, in the face of Art. 16(2) some of the States are adopting sons of the soil policies prescribing reservation or preference based on domicile or residence requirement for employment or appointment to an ­office under the Government of a State or any local or other authority or public sector corporation or any other corporation which is an instrumentality or agency of the State. Prima facie this would seem to be constitutionally impermissible though we do not wish to express any definite opinion upon it, since it does not directly arise for consideration in these writ petitions and civil appeal." However, in so far as admissions to educational institutions such as medical colleges are ­concerned, it was pointed out that Article 16(2) has no application and residential requirement cannot per se be condemned as uncon­stitutional. It was observed that the only provisions of the Constitution on the touchstone of which such residence requirement can be tested is Article 14. On a conspectus of earlier decisions of this Court, the learned Judge summarised the position thus in so far as admissions to professional education colleges are concerned:- "It will be noticed from the above discussion that though intra-state discrimination between persons resident in different districts or regions of a state has by and large been frowned upon by the Court and struck down as invalid as in Minor P. Rajendran s case (AIR. 1968 SC 1012) (supra) and Perakaruppan s case ( AIR 1971 SC 2303 ) (supra), the Court has in D.N. Chanchala s case and other similar cases upheld institutional reservation effected through university­wise distribution of seats for admission to medical colleges. The Court has also by its decisions in D.P. Joshi s case ( AIR 1955 SC 334 ) and N. Vasundhara s case ( AIR 1971 SC 1439 ) (supra) sustained the constitutional validity of reservation based on residence requirement within a State for the purpose of admission to medical colleges. These decisions which all relate to admission to MBBS course are binding upon us and it is therefore not possible for us to hold, in the face of these decisions that residence requirement in a State for admission to MBBS course is irrational and irrelevant and cannot be introduced as a condition for admission without violating the mandate of equality of opportunity contained in Art. 14. We must proceed on the basis that at least so far as admission to MBBS course is concerned, residence requirement in a State can be introduced as a condition for admission to the MBBS course." Bhagwati, J. underscored the need for evolving a policy of ensuring admissions to the MBBS course on all India basis "based as it is on the postulate that India is one nation and every citizen of India is entitled to have equal opportunity for education and advancement." But, it was observed that the realization of such ideal may not be realistically possible in the present circumstances. It was then concluded: "We are therefore of the view that a certain percentage of reservation on the basis of residence requirement may legitimately be made in order to equalize opportunities for medical admission on a broader basis and to bring about real and not formal, actual and not merely legal, equality. The percentage of reservation made on this count may also include institutional reservation for students passing the PUC or pre-medical examination of the same university or clearing the qualifying examination from the school system of the educational hinterland of the medical colleges in the State." It is not necessary for us to refer in extenso to various other decisions of this Court dealing with the scope of Article 15 (1) and 15 (4) vis a vis reservations based on residence within a University or other local area for the purpose of admissions to professional colleges. A summary of those decisions has been given by Bhagwati, J. in the passage extracted (supra). The requirement of residence and education within the university area for allocation of seats in medical colleges affiliated to that university was upheld on special considerations noticed in that judgment. 19. We may, however, advert to one recent decision wherein the view taken in Rajendran s case (supra) was reiterated. In Govind A. Mane Vs. State of Maharashtra ( 2000 (4) SCC 200 ) it was laid down: "Since it is not disputed by the respondent that for the purpose of admission to B.Ed. course, seats were distributed districtwise without indicating any material to show the nexus between such distribution and the object sought to be achieved, it would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution." 20. course, seats were distributed districtwise without indicating any material to show the nexus between such distribution and the object sought to be achieved, it would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution." 20. The lack of material to establish nexus between the geographical classification and the object sought to be achieved thereby was thus held to be violative of Article 14. 21. The question which fell for consideration of this Court whether the action of the State in Pradip Tandon vs. State of U.P. ( 1975 (1) SCC 267 ) was in reserving certain percentage of seats available in medical colleges in favour of candidates from rural areas, hill areas and Uttarakhand was justified? The reservation was sought to be justified from the stand point of Article 15(4). Repelling the contention, Ray, C.J., speaking for a three Judge Bench observed that "the Constitution does not enable the State to bring socially and educationally backward areas within the protection of Article 15(4) . It was pointed out that the accent in Article 15(4) is on classes of citizens: "The expression "classes of citizens indicates a homogeneous section of the people who are grouped together because of certain likenesses and common traits and who are identifiable by some common attributes. The homogeneity of the class of citizens is social and educational backwardness. Neither caste nor religion nor place of birth will be the uniform element of common attributes to make them a class of citizens. 22. Eschewing the test of poverty as the determining factor of social backwardness this Court made the following pertinent obser­vations: "........A division between the population of our country on the ground of poverty that the people in the urban areas are not poor and that the people in the rural areas are poor is neither supported by facts nor by a division between the urban people on the one hand and the rural people on the other that the rural people are socially and educationally backward class. Some people in the rural areas may be educationally backward, some may be socially backward, there may be few who are both socially and educationally backward, but it cannot be said that all citizens residing in rural areas are socially and educationally backward. Eighty per cent of the population in the State of Uttar Pradesh in rural areas cannot be said to be a homogeneous class by itself. Eighty per cent of the population in the State of Uttar Pradesh in rural areas cannot be said to be a homogeneous 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 educationally backward is to have reservation for the majority of the State." It was further observed : "The reservation for rural areas cannot be sustained on the ground that the rural areas represent socially and educationally backward classes of citizens. This reservation appears to be made for majority population of the Stale. Eighty per cent 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. It was then observed that "the present case of classification of rural areas is not one of under-classification. This is a case of discrimination in favour of the majority of rural population to the prejudice of the students drawn from the general category". 23. However, the learned Judges took the view that the hill and Uttarakhand areas in U.P. State are instances of socially and educationally backward classes of citizens and that those living in the hill and Uttarakhand areas can be considered to be socially and educationally backward classes of citizens. The social, economic and educational factors justifying such conclusion were set out succinctly by the learned Judges. Ultimately the reservation in favour of candidates from rural areas was declared unconstitutional while upholding reservation for the candidates from hill and Uttarakhand areas. The principle laid down in the above decisions, though in the context of interpretation of Article 15(4) is an answer to the contention of the State that bonus marks are provided for uplifting the rural educated persons so as to utilize their services for the upliftment of the fellow rural people through the spread of education. Prohibition of discrimination on the basis of place of residence in the context of public employment is an additional factor which makes it well nigh impossible to accept the above plea. 24. Before examining the further pleas in support of the impugned action taken by the State it would be apposite to refer to the decision in State of Maharashtra Vs. 24. Before examining the further pleas in support of the impugned action taken by the State it would be apposite to refer to the decision in State of Maharashtra Vs. Raj Kumar ( AIR 1982 SC 1301 ), on which reliance has been placed by the High Court and reference has been made in the course of arguments before us. In that case a rule was made by the State of Maharashtra that a candidate in order to be treated as a rural candidate must have passed SSC Examination which is held from a village or a town having only C type municipality. The object of the rule, as pointed out by this Court, was to appoint candidates having full knowledge of rural life and its problems so that they would be more suitable for working as officers in rural areas. The rule was struck down on the ground that there was no nexus between classification made and the object sought to be achieved because "as the rule stands any person who may not have lived in a village at all can appear for SSC examination from a village and yet become eligible for selection". The rule was held to be violative of Articles 14 and 16. Another point discussed by the Court was about the propriety of giving bonus marks for the rural candidates and the Court held thus : "The rules also provide that viva-voce Board would put relevant questions to judge the suitability of candidate for working in rural areas and to test whether or not they have sufficient knowledge of rural problems, and this no doubt amounts to a sufficient safeguard to ascertain the ability of the candidate regarding his knowledge about the affairs of the village. In such a situation there was absolutely no occasion for making an express provision for giving weightage which would virtually convert merit into demerit and demerit into merit and would be per se violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as being an impermissible classification. The rule of weightage as applied in this case is manifestly unreasonable and wholly arbitrary and cannot be sustained."