JUDGMENT 1. - These two writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners with the prayer to direct the respondents to give appointment to the petitioners on the post of Senior Teacher Gr.II in subject Science with all consequential benefits after adding the marks of teaching experience. 2. Shri Anoop Dhand, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on Division Bench judgments of this Court in Zila Parishad Nagaur v. Jabbar Singh & Anr. {1993 W.L.R. 842 } and Emarta Ram Pooniya & 6 Ors. v. State of Rajasthan {WLC (Raj.) 2005(2) 358 } and argued that in both the aforesaid cases, the Division Bench of this Court held that there can be no distinction between the experience gained by a teacher while working in the Government school or private aided school. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that respondents were not wholly justified in not granting bonus marks to the petitioners even though they were working in the private aided educational institutions. 3. Shri Hemant Gupta, learned Additional Government Counsel has opposed the writ petition and argued that the condition incorporated in the advertisement which was subject-matter of examination before the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid two cases was different. In the present case, respondents have in the advertisement clearly indicated that the experience of teaching in a private aided institutions shall be admissible for grant of bonus marks only if the candidate concerned has been engaged on the post against which aid is received by the said institution. It was argued that there is a rational behind this condition in that the aided institutions have to be treated different than other unaided institutions and therefore on the basis of this distinction, bonus marks cannot be given to the petitioners. The condition aforesaid has not been subjected to challenge. 4. It was argued that there is a rational behind this condition in that the aided institutions have to be treated different than other unaided institutions and therefore on the basis of this distinction, bonus marks cannot be given to the petitioners. The condition aforesaid has not been subjected to challenge. 4. Shri Anoop Dhand, learned counsel for the petitioners has rejoined and submitted that there can be no justification for making distinction between two categories of posts, one is aided and another unaided as per Rule 2(c) of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution (Recognition, Grant in aid and Service conditions etc.) Rules, 1992 and argued that the said rules defines that aided institution means a recognised institution which is receiving regular aid in the form of maintenance grant from the State Government and for that purpose even that part of the school would also be aided which is not receiving the aid. It was argued that in view of the aforesaid language of the rule, the advertisement issued by the respondents is only discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I find that though the Division Bench in the aforesaid two cases has held that the experience even in the private recognised institution would be an analogy for grant of bonus marks on the basis of teaching experience but in both the aforesaid cases, this condition which is now being agitated by the respondents, the teaching experience in a private aided institutions would be admissible for grant of bonus marks only if the candidate concerned has been so attached by virtue of his appointment on a post against which grant-in-aid is received was not examined. The writ petitions admittedly have been filed by the petitioners for selection pertaining to the year 2003-04 though they have not challenged the validity of the aforesaid condition. The petitioners have raised arguments questioning correctness of the aforesaid condition but having not challenged the aforesaid condition, respondents could not be expected to suddenly meet the argument about challenge to the said condition. This Court sue motu and on its own also cannot examine the validity of the aforesaid condition unless a specific challenge is made thereto. The petitioners have raised arguments questioning correctness of the aforesaid condition but having not challenged the aforesaid condition, respondents could not be expected to suddenly meet the argument about challenge to the said condition. This Court sue motu and on its own also cannot examine the validity of the aforesaid condition unless a specific challenge is made thereto. Even otherwise, the process of selection has now been completed.I do not find any merit in these writ petitions which are accordingly dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******