JUDGMENT : 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying that the petitioners be held eligible to grant of bonus marks and thereafter, they be permitted to submit their application form in pursuance of the Advertisement/Notification Annexure-1, issued by the respondent-Rural Development & Panchayati Raj Department. 2. Briefly stated, the Rural Development & Panchayati Raj Department, issued a Notification dated 12.2.2013 (Annexure-1) inviting applications for recruitment of Lower Division Clerks. The petitioners herein are posted as Secretary, Water Shed Committees (hereinafter called as ‘the Committees’) under the scheme of National Water Shed Programme. Co-employees of the petitioners filed bunch of writ petitions in this Court, praying therein that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued to the State Government to consider candidature of the persons employed as Secretary, Water Shed Committees under the scheme of National Water Shed Programme, at par with the other employees working under MGNREGA, so far recruitment process in pursuance of Notification dated 12.2.2013 is concerned. The said bunch of writ petitions were allowed by the Division Bench of this Court by holding as under:- “In view of the above narrative, based on contemporaneous records/documents, there appears, in our comprehension, no rational or tangible foundation to draw any distinction either between the incumbents of Water Shed Development Team or Water Shed Committee, conceived of as the entities for execution of the projects under the Integrated Water Shed Development Programme, pursuant to the National Water Shed Development Project, mooted by the Central Government and sponsored jointly by it along with the State Government. Having regard to the nature of the duties and functions entrusted to the Secretary of the watershed committee, construed to be a sub committee of the concerned Panchayat Institution, we find no existing basis as well for differentiating him (Secretary) from other members of such committees. The project being clearly sponsored and executed by the State Government with the proclaimed status of watershed committee, it is an integral part of the related Panchayat Institution. The project being clearly sponsored and executed by the State Government with the proclaimed status of watershed committee, it is an integral part of the related Panchayat Institution. We are, thus, of the unhesitant opinion that vis-a-vis an incumbent engaged on contract basis in the State rendering services under MGNREGA, or Integrated Water Shed Management Programme, or National Water Shed Development Programme/D.D.P./ D.P.A.P. or Nirmal Bharat Abhiya, there is no reasonable and existing yardstick to exclude the Secretary of the water shed committee otherwise assimilated in the same exploits from the benefit of bonus marks. The mode of his appointment and the author thereof, ipso facto, in the face of the otherwise overwhelming and contemporaneous materials establishing parity of the post of Secretary, water shed committee with that of others working under the aforenamed programmes/schemes, cannot be construed to be a judicially approvable measure to deny him bonus marks on the basis of his experience, if he is otherwise entitled thereto. The plea of the State-respondents, to this effect, thus, does not commend for acceptance and is consequently, rejected. In the wake of the above, a Secretary of the water shed committee under the Integrated Water Shed Management Programme, launched in terms of the National Water Shed Development Programme, is also held to be entitled for grant of bonus marks, as per Rule 273 of the Rules. The respondents, thus, are hereby required to grant bonus marks to the petitioners in the process of direct recruitment involved, as due to them under the Rules, guidelines and the advertisement and accordingly, assess their suitability for appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk involved and take consequential decision. The writ petitions, in the above premise, are thus allowed.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that aggrieved against the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court, the State of Rajasthan filed Special Leave Petition and the said Special Leave Petition was dismissed and the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Manohar Lal Jaga vs. State of Rajasthan & Others, Civil Writ Petition No. 5861/2013, was upheld. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in view of the dismissal of Special Leave to Petition, the petitioners are entitled to be granted 10 bonus marks for each year service rendered, maximum upto 30 bonus marks for three years’ service completed by the petitioners, who are working as Secretaries of the Committees. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that since earlier writ petitions were allowed, the petitioners be also held entitled to grant of 10 bonus marks for each year service completed. 4. Admittedly, on the date when the Notification dated 12.2.2013 was issued and on the last date of submission of application form, the petitioners were not having requisite service to their credit. On this score alone, judgment relied and rendered in case of Manohar Lal Jagga (supra) is distinguishable, as the learned counsel for the petitioners has not denied that even before the date of issuance of Notification and last date of submission of application form, the petitioners were not having requisite service. Counsel for the petitioner, however, contends that since recruitment process has not been completed, therefore, the petitioners be held entitled to apply in pursuance of the said Notification (Annexure-1) and be granted 10 bonus marks qua each year of service rendered by the petitioners. 5. Due to filing of writ petitions, by similarly situated candidates, who had completed requisite years of service on the date of issuance of Notification and on the last date of submission of application form, the recruitment process could not be completed. The delay has occurred due to pendency of the litigation. Now, due to dismissal of Special Leave Petition, the recruitment process qua the candidates who had applied on the last date of submission of application form, has been revived and same is yet to be completed. Therefore, the petitioners who during the pendency of litigation have completed the requisite service cannot be held entitled to award of bonus marks. Their application forms to be presented now cannot be treated as valid as the last date of submission of application form has already elapsed. Therefore, the petitioners may apply in pursuance of the fresh Notification/Advertisement to be issued in the future. So far earlier Notification/ Advertisement is concerned, candidature of the petitioners for the post of LDC cannot be considered as recruitment process has already been initiated and is in the process of completion. Therefore, the petitioners may apply in pursuance of the fresh Notification/Advertisement to be issued in the future. So far earlier Notification/ Advertisement is concerned, candidature of the petitioners for the post of LDC cannot be considered as recruitment process has already been initiated and is in the process of completion. 6. Admittedly, on the date when the Notification was issued, and on the last date prescribed for submission of application form, the petitioners were not having requisite qualification and eligibility, therefore, they cannot be now brought back as back door entry merely because recruitment process is going on and due to litigation could not be completed. 7. Consequently, there is no merit in the present writ petition, hence, the same is dismissed.