ORDER : 1. These eight special leave petitions arise out of a common judgment dated 25.9.2013 of the High Court of Rajasthan. The issue involved in these matters is no more res integra and covered by the judgment of this Court in Sachivalya Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karamchari Union, Jaipur vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2016 (8) SCALE 64 . 2. The Rajasthan Panchayti Raj Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') authorises the State of Rajasthan to carry out the objectives of the Act. In exercise of the power under the Act, Rules were framed by the State in the year 1996. Chapter 12 of the Rules relates to the recruitment and the service conditions for the Panchayati Raj Institutions in the State of Rajasthan. 3. Rule 273 deals with the procedure for making recruitment to the various posts. The proviso to the said rule authorises the Government to give some weightage to the experience of the candidates seeking employment. In exercise of the said power, the State of Rajasthan propounded a policy for weightage for experience. In substance: the weightage is 10 marks for experience of more than one year but less than 2 years, 20 marks for the experience of more than 2 years but less than 3 years and 30 marks for experience of more than 3 years. The complete details of the entire system may not be relevant for the present purpose. 4. It is agreed on all hands that the facts leading in SLP(C)No.32008-32009/2013 be taken as representative facts in this batch of SLPs 5. A writ petition came to be filed in the Rajasthan High Court by the first respondent herein-Archana in SLP(C)No.32008-32009/2013 praying that the above policy of the Government be implemented in the ongoing recruitment of the Junior Assistants in the Panchayati Raj Institutions. The learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, while hearing the matter entertained the doubt whether the said weightage proposed by the State is consistent with the law laid down by this Court in Uma Devi's case (Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (3) & Ors 2006 (4) SCC 1 ), therefore, referred the matter to a Division Bench. 6. 6. By the judgment under appeal, the Division Bench though did not find anything wrong with the policy of giving weightage for the 'experience' gained by the candidates however, found that the bonus marks to the extent of 30 marks is unjust and arbitrary. The relevant portion of the impugned judgment reads as follows: “...(5) The grant of weightage in the form of bonus marks while making recruitment to the post in the services in question is not at all in contravention of the law laid down in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (supra), and it is also not an effort to frustrate the law laid down in the case aforesaid; and (6) The grant of bonus marks to the extent of 30 marks is unjust, arbitrary and unfair, hence is declared illegal and is quashed. The State Government may grant the weightage in the form of bonus marks against service experience within the cap of 15 marks.” 7. Aggrieved by the same, the State of Rajasthan, preferred the instant special leave petition being SLP (C)Nos.23008-32009/2013. 8. Leave granted in all the eight special leave petitions. 9. The question of grant of weightage fell for consideration before this Court. It is a case where certain employees sought regularisation of their service in the State of Rajasthan by filing a writ petition. During the pendency of the writ petition there was a settlement of the dispute between the State and the employees Union. The relevant terms of settlement were as follows: “..(2) In the event of the Government making regular selections for the vacant posts of Farrash/ Sweepers/Class IV/ Helper etc. the petitioners shall be given weightage as well as relaxation in the eligibility condition keeping in view their long duration of past services subject to their satisfactory performance. (3) Subject to the giving of weightage and relaxation in the eligibility condition, the petitioners will have to compete with others, in case, the Government intends to make regular selections on the vacant posts of Farrash/ Sweepers/Class IV/ Helper etc.and...” 10. Subsequently, the State sought to fill up some of the Class IV posts. (3) Subject to the giving of weightage and relaxation in the eligibility condition, the petitioners will have to compete with others, in case, the Government intends to make regular selections on the vacant posts of Farrash/ Sweepers/Class IV/ Helper etc.and...” 10. Subsequently, the State sought to fill up some of the Class IV posts. The recruitment process came to be challenged by the employees Union on the ground that the recruitment was not consistent with the terms of the settlement entered into between the State and the employees Union earlier (the relevant portion of which is already extracted above). The question of legality of the policy of giving weightage for experience gained and whether such weightage would be consistent with the law declared by this Court in Uma Devi arose. 11. When this matter reached this Court, this Court held that Uma Devi's case (supra) did not deal with the question of weightage but dealt with the mode of recruitment. It was further held that the quantum/measure of weightage could be decided by the State by adopting a rational policy in accordance with the law. 12. In the instant case, the State itself was the propounder of the policy (noticed above), giving the weightage which varied with the number of 'experience' gained by the employees. Therefore, the State cannot be heard to say that the policy is not a rational policy. Apart from that, we do not find anything arbitrary in the policy propounded by the State. 13. In the result, the appeals of the state as well as of the employees are allowed. We set aside the judgment under appeal to the extent that it held that the State Government may grant weightage/bonus marks against the service experience within the cap of 15 marks. 14. In other words, the policy propounded by the State must be allowed to operate on its own terms. 15. With the above directions the appeals are allowed as indicated above.