ORDER : As regards petitioners no.5-6-7 are concerned, counsel for petitioners on instructions does not want to press the petition. 2. Accordingly, the writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioners no.5-6-7 stands dismissed as not pressed. However, they are at liberty to file fresh if occasion arises in future, if so advised. 3. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioners questioning the impugned notification dt.29-1-2013 whereby amendment has been made u/R 273 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. 4. Counsel for petitioners has brought to our notice that the self same controversy came to be examined by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP-5861/2013 along with other connected petitions decided vide judgment dt.18-4-2014. 5. Operative part of the order dt.18-4-2014 reads 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. 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.” 6. In the light of the controversy being decided by this Court, referred to supra, the issue raised in the instant petition is no more res integra and in light thereof present petition stands dismissed.