JUDGMENT Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. - By Writ Petition No. 7316/2017 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of proviso to Rule 273 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, substituted by the Rajasthan Panchayanti Raj (Amendment) Rules, 2013 vide Notification dated 29.01.2013 (Annexure-2). 2. Petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:- "a) By an appropriate writ, order and direction in the nature thereof the amended provision of Rule 273 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules 1996 amended vide Notification dated 29.01.2013 may kindly be held ultra-virus to the Constitution of India, illegal, arbitrary and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside. b) By an appropriate writ order and direction alternatively the respondents may kindly be directed to further amend the provision of Rule 273 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules 1996 and include the posts on which the petitioners have worked in Mid-Day Meal Scheme in the Rule 273 of the Rules 1996. c) By an appropriate writ order and direction the respondents may be directed to give benefit of bonus marks to the petitioners on their respective posts under Mid-day Meal Scheme in the light of clarification Order dated 21.04.2017. d) By an appropriate writ order and direction the respondent Chief Executive Officer Zila Parishad Jaipur may be directed to issue Experience Certificate to the petitioners on the basis of their services through placement agency. e) By an appropriate writ order and direction the respondents may be directed to consider experience certificates and give benefit of bonus marks and give appointment to the post of LDC Recruitment 2013 if found eligible and suitable on the basis of merits with all consequential benefits. f) Any other order or direction this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper be also passed in favour of the Petitioners." 3. At the out set, learned counsel for the parties have jointly submitted that in so far as petitioner No. 1-Tikam Chand Verma, petitioner No. 5-Rajesh Kushwah and petitioner No. 6-Manoj Kumar Nahar in Writ Petition No. 7316/2017 are concerned, on account of subsequent notification, their grievance has been redressed as now they have been granted weightage of experience of the post on which they were working. Therefore, this petition in so far as petitioners No. 1, 5 & 6 are concerned, is rendered infructuous. 4. Therefore, this petition in so far as petitioners No. 1, 5 & 6 are concerned, is rendered infructuous. 4. Petitioner No. 2-Shankar Lal Lakhera, petitioner No. 3-Poonam Saini and petitioner No. 4-Jitendra Kumar Sharma were appointed through placement agency on different posts. Petitioners No. 2 & 3 were appointed as Steno, whereas, petitioner No. 4 was appointed as Assistant Staff in the Mid-Day Meal Scheme of the Central Government implemented by the State. Statement of posts as issued by the Deputy Commissioner (Finance) has also been placed on record as Annexure-4. 5. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 102 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (Act No. 13 of 1994) and all other powers enabling in this behalf, the State Government framed rules known as Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1996'. Amongst various provisions, the aforesaid Rules also provided for appointment to various posts. Rule 273 of the Rules of 1996 was amended by adding a provision vide Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Second Amendment) Rules, 2012 vide Notification dated 17.12.2012. The proviso so added laid down qualification and experience required for appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk. 6. The rule was again amended vide Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Rules, 2013 by which the proviso added earlier vide (Second Amendment) Rules, 2012 was again substituted by a new proviso as below:- "Provided also that in case of appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk, merit shall be prepared by the Appointing Authority on the basis of such weightage as may be specified by the State Government for the marks obtained in Senior Secondary or its equivalent examination and such marks as may be specified by the State Government having regard to the length of experience exceeding one year acquired by persons engaged on the post of Junior Technical Assistant (J.T.A), Junior Engineer, Gram Rozgar Sahayak, Data Entry Operator, Computer Operator with Machine, Lekha Sahayak, Lower Division Clerk, Co-ordinator IEC, Coordinator Training, Coordinator Supervision, other than through placement agency, in MGNREGA or in any other scheme of the Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj in the State. Explanation: Wherever percentage of the marks can not be ascertained due to grade awarded to the candidate in the particular examination, the median of the grade awarded to the candidate in such examination shall be basis for the preparation of the merit list." 7. A new proviso so added vide amendment of 2013 provided for grant of weightage as may be specified by the State Government for the marks obtained in Senior Secondary or its equivalent examination and such marks as may be specified by the State Government having regard to the length of experience exceeding one year acquired by persons engaged on post specified in the proviso other than through placement agency, in MGNREGA or in any scheme of the Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj in the State. 8. Advertisement was issued inviting application for direct recruitment to the post of Junior Clerk (Lower Division Clerk). In line with the Scheme as contained in proviso to Rule 273 of the Rules of 1996, it was provided in the advertisement that the employees, who have worked on the post specified in Rule 273, shall be provided bonus marks on the basis of length of their experience. Denial of bonus marks for the experience acquired by those, who were engaged through placement agency, was challenged by filling a petition before this Court in Mitendra Singh Rathore & 121 Ors Versus State of Rajasthan and Ors, 2013 (4) WLC (Raj.) 523, this Court held that those, who have been appointed through placement agency shall also be entitled to bonus marks for working experience acquired by them. Petitioners No. 2, 3 & 4 also applied. 9. In the meantime, a clarificatory order was issued on 21.04.2017 to the effect that those employees, who had worked under Mid-Day Meal Scheme (upto 18.04.2013) shall also be extended the benefit of bonus marks. 10. Petitioners No. 2, 3 & 4, having found that their application forms were not accepted though they had worked in the Mid-Day Meal Scheme because they acquired experience of working on the post of Steno and Assistant, which were not specified in proviso to Rule 273 of the Rules of 1996, this petition came to be filed seeking reliefs as stated hereinabove. 11. 11. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners No. 2, 3 & 4 is that once it has been held that those who have been engaged through placement agency are also entitled to bonus marks for working experience and vide subsequent clarificatory order issued on 21.04.2017, employees engaged in Mid-Day Meal Scheme having also been included, denial of benefit of weightage of working experience on the post of Steno and Assistant is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that proviso to Rule 273 of the Rules of 1996 provides for eligibility and bonus marks for appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk which is a ministerial post. The rule allows bonus marks and weightage for various categories of posts being ministerial, non-ministerial & executive. It has been argued that when Junior Technical Assistant (J.T.A.), Junior Engineer, Gram Rozgar Sahayak, Data Entry Operator, Computer Operator with Machine, Lekha Sahayak, Lower Division Clerk, Co-ordinator IEC, Coordinator Training, Coordinator Supervision have been benefited by the provision of weightage/bonus marks for working experience, there is no rational basis for excluding Steno and Office Assistants. The submission is that when Engineers and Data Entry Operators are allowed bonus marks and weightage of their working experience in the matter of appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk, which is a ministerial post, exclusion of Steno and Assistant is not based on any valid classification having nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Learned counsel has placed reliance on decision of the Division Bench of this court in the Case of Manohar Lal Jaga Versus State of Rajasthan and Others, (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5861/2013) and batch of petitions, decided on 18.04.2014. It has been argued that denial of benefit of weightage marks to Steno and Assistant is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. 13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would argue that the claim of parity by the petitioners No. 2, 3 & 4, who were working as Steno and Assistant is without any legal basis. It is contended that the rule making authority in its wisdom has decided to grant weightage/bonus marks for having work experience on certain category of posts enumerated in proviso to Rule 273 of the Rules of 1996. It is contended that the rule making authority in its wisdom has decided to grant weightage/bonus marks for having work experience on certain category of posts enumerated in proviso to Rule 273 of the Rules of 1996. Petitioners No. 2, 3 & 4 are working on post of Steno and Assistant, which is different in all respects including job specification, nature of duties and functions as compared to the post specified in proviso to Rule 273 of the Rules of 1996. Therefore, classification is valid and constitutionally permissible. It is further argued that the validity of proviso to Rule 273 has been upheld by this Court in the case of Mitendra Singh Rathore & 121 Ors Versus State of Rajasthan and Others (Supra) and the same has also attained finality after decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in appeal preferred by the State. Therefore, petitioners cannot claim weightage for experience and issuance of experience certificate for those posts, which have not been included in proviso to Rule 273 of the Rules of 1996. In support of his contention, respondents have placed reliance on the order dated 20.10.2016 passed in Hemant Kumar Sharma Versus State and Another (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2852/2014) and order dated 29.11.2016 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. Versus Archana Etc., SLP No. 32008-32009/2013. 14. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records. 15. What emerges from the legislative history is that initially in the matter of appointments to various posts, Rule 273 of the Rules of 1996 provided as below:- "Written test: The committee may hold a written test for all categories of service except drivers and class IV. [The Examination shall be conducted as per directions of the State Government. The syllabus for competitive examination for direct recruitment to the posts of Primary and Upper Primary school teachers shall be as specified in Schedule-II.] D.E.C. will prepare the merit list on such basis: Provided that selections for the various posts shall be made in accordance with the general directions given by the State Government from time to time in this respect. It may not be necessary to call the candidates for interview if so provided in those directions." 16. It may not be necessary to call the candidates for interview if so provided in those directions." 16. Vide Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Rules, 2013, a new proviso was added, which is already reproduced hereinabove. 17. The proviso laid downs provisions regarding appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk. It provides for preparation of merit list on the basis of marks obtained in qualifying academic examination as specified and bonus marks as may be specified by the State Government having regard to the length of experience on various posts in MGNREGA or in any other scheme of the Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj in the State. 18. While providing that in the matter of appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk, merit shall be prepared on the basis of weightage as may be specified by the State Government for the marks obtained in Senior Secondary or its equivalent examination, it also provided grant of weightage for such marks as may be specified by the State Government having regard to the length of experience exceeding one year acquired by persons engaged on post of Junior Technical Assistant (J.T.A.), Junior Engineer, Gram Rozgar Sahayak, Data Entry Operator, Computer Operator with Machine, Lekha Sahayak, Lower Division Clerk, Co-ordinator IEC, Coordinator Training, Coordinator Supervision, other than through placement agency, in MGNREGA or in any scheme of the Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj in the State. 19. It is not in dispute between the parties that in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Mitendra Singh Rathore & 121 Ors Versus State of Rajasthan and Others (Supra), those engaged through placement agency were also included in the basis of grant of weightage. 20. Later on, the Government came out with a clarificatory order on 21.04.2017 (Annexure-5) wherein, it provided that employees, who have worked on the post specified in the advertisement, in Mid-Day Meal Scheme of Panchayati Raj Department would also be entitled to grant of bonus marks. 21. It is thus, clear and not a disputed position on record also that those employees of Mid-Day Meal Scheme, who have worked on the posts specified in the advertisement, were held entitled to benefit of bonus marks for their work experience on the posts specified therein. 21. It is thus, clear and not a disputed position on record also that those employees of Mid-Day Meal Scheme, who have worked on the posts specified in the advertisement, were held entitled to benefit of bonus marks for their work experience on the posts specified therein. The posts which have been specified in the advertisement are those which have been specified in the impugned proviso to Rule 273 of the Rules of 1996. 22. The scheme of grant of bonus marks for working experience on various posts specified in the proviso to Rule 273 of the Rules of 1996 is for the purposes of appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk. Obviously, the post of Lower Division Clerk is a clerical/ministerial post, the duties and functions which have been assigned to the post of Lower Division Clerk cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said to be technical, semi technical, managerial or supervisory in nature. However, the rule making authority granted weightage for work experience on various posts, which include posts of Junior Technical Assistant (J.T.A.), Junior Engineer, Data Entry Operator, Computer Operator. Further benefit of weightage has also been extended to those who have worked on the post of Gram Rozgar Sahayak (Village Employment Assistant), Lekha Sahayak (Accounts Assistant). Not only this, even those working as Co-ordinators in IEC, Training, Supervision have also been included. 23. It would thus, be seen that while granting benefit of bonus marks, in the matter of appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk, apart from granting bonus marks for working experience on the post of Lower Division Clerk, wide category of posts having no connection with the nature of duties and functions of the post of Lower Division Clerk have also been included. Therefore, it is clear that for the purposes of grant of benefit of bonus marks, the rule making authority itself decided to grant benefit irrespective of whether the work experience is acquired on a ministerial post or post other than ministerial post and has gone to the extent of providing bonus marks to even Executive, Technical posts, Supervisory posts, posts of Assistants in account, employment related work etc. 24. 24. There is no basis for classification as between the category of post of Steno and Assistants on the one hand and all those posts, which have been specified in proviso to Rule 273 of the Rules of 1996 on the other. Even though, the post of Steno and Assistant, strictly speaking, may not be carrying the same duties and functions as Lower Division Clerk, for the purposes of appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk, no reasonable basis for such classification has been stated by the respondents in their reply or in any other documents as to why such classification has been made. 25. Present is not a case where the benefit of bonus marks/weightage has been confined only to those who have worked on the post of Lower Division Clerk in various schemes. Once, the respondents themselves have included large category of posts for the purposes of giving benefit of weightage in the matter of appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk, it cannot be said that the basis for classification is nature and duties of functions. It was for the respondents to establish and satisfy the Court, the basis for such classification so as to reach to a conclusion that there is a reasonable basis for classification and is not a case of discriminatory treatment violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 26. Once the respondents have included for the purposes of grant of bonus marks, the employees working in Mid-Day Meal Scheme of the Panchayati Raj Department, there is no rational integra for creating two different categories without any rational basis for such classification, rendering those classification unreasonable and thus, violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Respondents have utterly failed to come out as to what object is sought to be achieved by such classification, particularly when for the purposes of award of bonus marks/weightage, posts carrying different kinds of duties and functions other than those of the Lower Division Clerk, have been included. While granting benefit of working experience on the Technical posts and Supervisory posts, denying benefit of working experience on other posts like that of Steno and Assistant has no rational or logic. Such classification, therefore, is unreasonable and suffers from manifest arbitrariness. 27. While granting benefit of working experience on the Technical posts and Supervisory posts, denying benefit of working experience on other posts like that of Steno and Assistant has no rational or logic. Such classification, therefore, is unreasonable and suffers from manifest arbitrariness. 27. Respondents have placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hemant Kumar Sharma (Supra). In that case, challenge was made to the proviso to Rule 273 of the Rules of 1996 in so far as it restricts grant of bonus marks only to those employees working under MGNREGA or any other scheme of the Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj in the State. Further prayer was that the respondents may be directed to grant bonus marks to the petitioner therein for the services rendered by him in Chief Minister Jeevan Raksha Kosh Yojna. Thus, non-inclusion of employees in particular scheme was under challenge. In the preset case, the petitioners have not claimed for inclusion of employees of Mid-Day Meal Scheme because they have already been allowed by respondents. The challenge is to classification of post in the Mid-Day Meal Scheme for the purposes of grant of bonus marks. Thus, the aforesaid decision is distinguishable on facts. 28. Reliance placed by the respondents on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Versus Archana Etc. (Supra) is also misplaced in law. The issue in that petition revolved around validity of policy of grant of weightage proposed by the State in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Versus Uma Devi (3) & Ors., 2006 (4) Supreme Court Cases 1. 29. In the aforesaid case, learned Single Judge of the High Court referred the matter to a Division Bench. 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 order of the Division bench was assailed before the Supreme Court and it was held that the State itself was the propounder of the policy, giving the weightage, which varied with the number of experience gained by the employees. The order of the Division bench was assailed before the Supreme Court and it was held that the State itself was the propounder of the policy, 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. The issue raised in the present petition was neither raised, nor any occasion arose to decide the issue as raised in this petition. Therefore, the aforesaid decision also does not come to the aid of the respondents. 30. Another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited by the respondents in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. Versus Satpal Saini, AIR 2017 SC 810 , dealt with a case where a direction was issued by the High Court for amending the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. It was held that a direction cannot be issued to the legislature to enact a law as such the power to enact legislation is a plenary constitutional power, which is vested in Parliament and the State Legislatures under Articles 245 & 246 of the Constitution of India. In the present case, the challenge is to the discriminatory treatment and unreasonable classification for the purposes of grant of bonus marks/weightage in the matter of recruitment to the post of Lower Division Clerk. 31. In the case of Binoy Viswam Versus Union of India and Others, (2017) 7 Supreme Court Cases 59, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification of persons, objects and transactions by the legislature for the purpose of achieving specific ends. The tests to be applied for a classification to be reasonable, were also laid down as below:- "102. What follows is that Article 14 forbids class legislation; it does not forbid reasonable classification of persons, objects and transactions by the legislature for the purpose of achieving specific ends. Classification to be reasonable should fulfill the following two tests: 102.1. It should not be arbitrary, artificial or evasive. It should be based on an intelligible differentia, some real and substantial distinction, which distinguishes persons or things grouped together in the class from others left out of it. 102.2. Classification to be reasonable should fulfill the following two tests: 102.1. It should not be arbitrary, artificial or evasive. It should be based on an intelligible differentia, some real and substantial distinction, which distinguishes persons or things grouped together in the class from others left out of it. 102.2. The differentia adopted as the basis of classification must have a rational or reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question." 32. It was further held that differential treatment does not per se amount of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and it violates Article 14 only when there is no reasonable basis. It was held thus:- "103. Thus, Article 14 in its ambit and sweep involves two facets viz. it permits reasonable classification which is founded on intelligible differentia and accommodates the practical needs of the society and the differentia must have a rational relation to the objects sought to be achieved, Further, it does not allow any kind of arbitrariness and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. It is the fons juris of our Constitution, the fountainhead of justice. Differential treatment does not per se amount to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and it violates Article 14 only when there is no reasonable basis and there are several tests to decide whether a classification is reasonable or not and one of the tests will be as to whether it is conducive to the functioning of modern society." 33. Therefore, the action of the respondents in not including the post of Steno and Assistant in the Mid-Day Meal Scheme for the purposes of grant of bonus marks for working experience is clearly arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. The respondents are directed to accordingly carry out necessary amendment in the Rule to remove discrimination by including the post of Steno and Assistant as well for the purposes of grant of bonus marks for working experience on those posts. 34. Vide detailed order dated 23.10.2017, this Court directed the respondents that length of services rendered by petitioners No. 2, 3 & 4 for the post held by them in the Mid-Day Meal Scheme be considered for grant of bonus marks after due verification of their service in terms of proviso to Rule 273 of the Rules of 1996. 34. Vide detailed order dated 23.10.2017, this Court directed the respondents that length of services rendered by petitioners No. 2, 3 & 4 for the post held by them in the Mid-Day Meal Scheme be considered for grant of bonus marks after due verification of their service in terms of proviso to Rule 273 of the Rules of 1996. Their consideration, however, was made provisional. It was further directed that if their names find place in the order of merit, they may be considered for appointment though their selection shall remain subject to final out come of the petition. 35. If the petitioners No. 2, 3 & 4 have found place in the merit list in compliance of the direction vide order dated 23.10.2017 and thereafter, appointed, they shell continue in appointment with all consequential benefits and shall no longer be treated as provisional in nature. 36. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. 37. No order as to costs. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 2584/2018: 38. In view of the order passed in the writ petition, at this stage, no further order is required to be passed in the contempt matter. 39. Accordingly, the contempt petition is disposed off. 40. Notices are discharged.