10 bonus marks for staying in your district? The court said no.

Ten extra marks for staying put? The Rajasthan High Court says no.

Mohan Lal Sharma is a government school teacher in Rajasthan. When the State advertised for teachers to staff its new English Medium Schools, he saw a chance. He applied. Then he read Condition No.9: any candidate who opted for the district where they were already posted would get 10 bonus marks. Sharma, like many others, was not posted in the district he wanted to apply for. He was, in effect, starting the race ten points behind.

That 10-mark advantage—awarded for nothing more than the accident of where a teacher already sat—was the entire dispute. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, in a judgment authored by Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand on 11 November 2024, struck it down. The condition was held ultra vires the governing statutory rules and unconstitutional under Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution. The State’s attempt to prefer its own locally-posted employees, the Court held, was impermissible discrimination dressed up as policy.

The advertisement that went too far

On 11 July 2024, the Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan issued an advertisement for selecting existing government school teachers and staff to work in English Medium Schools—the Mahatma Gandhi Government English Medium Schools and Swami Vivekanand Government Model Schools. The selection was governed by the Rajasthan Civil Services (Special Selection and Special Conditions of Service for Appointment of Personnel in English Medium Schools) Rules, 2023. Condition No.9 of the advertisement read: a written exam of 100 marks would be conducted, and if a candidate opted for the district where they were already posted, they would receive 10 extra bonus marks.

Several teachers—Mohan Lal Sharma and others in connected writ petitions—challenged this condition. Their argument was straightforward: the Rules of 2023 did not provide for any such bonus marks. Rule 10 of those Rules laid down the criteria for selection. It mentioned a written examination, but it did not mention bonus marks for staying in one’s current district. The advertisement, they said, had added a condition the Rules never authorised.

The State defended the condition. The bonus marks, it argued, were meant to prefer candidates already serving in a district, presumably to ensure continuity and local knowledge. The State said the condition was a policy choice, a way to incentivise teachers to stay where they were.

What the Rules actually said

The Court went straight to the source. Rule 7 of the 2023 Rules specified the source of selection—existing government school personnel. Rule 8 laid down eligibility. Rule 10, the critical provision, prescribed the criteria for selection. The Court examined Rule 10 and found no mention of any bonus marks for opting for one’s current district of posting. The condition in the advertisement, the Court observed, was an addition not found in the statutory rules.

This was not a minor drafting error. The Court cited The Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. Union of India & Others (2022 SCC OnLine SC 70) for the proposition that where there is a conflict between a statement in an advertisement and service regulations, the latter shall prevail. An erroneous advertisement does not create a right. The Court also relied on Ashish Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh ((2018) 3 SCC 55), which held that any part of an advertisement contrary to statutory rules must give way to the statutory prescription. Statutory rules take precedence over advertisement conditions.

The Court’s reasoning was simple: the Rules of 2023 were the governing law. The advertisement was merely an instrument to implement those Rules. If the advertisement added a benefit the Rules did not provide, the advertisement was ultra vires. Condition No.9, therefore, was unsustainable on this ground alone.

The constitutional problem: bonus marks based on place of posting

But the Court did not stop at the rules-versus-advertisement conflict. It went deeper, to the constitutional validity of the condition itself. The bonus marks, the Court held, created an impermissible classification based on the place of a candidate’s current posting. This, the Court said, violated Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution.

Article 16(2) expressly prohibits discrimination in public employment on grounds of residence. Article 16(3) carves out a narrow exception: Parliament may, by law, prescribe a requirement as to residence within a particular State or Union territory for certain posts. But no such parliamentary law existed here. The State of Rajasthan, on its own, had attempted to give preference to candidates based on their current district of posting—a form of residence-based discrimination.

The Court turned to Kailash Chand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Others ((2002) 6 SCC 562), a case that was directly on point. In Kailash Chand Sharma, the Supreme Court had struck down bonus marks awarded to candidates from rural areas and particular districts in teacher recruitment in Rajasthan. The Supreme Court held that residence within a district or rural area cannot be a valid basis for preferential treatment in public employment. Such classification, the Court said, has no rational nexus to the objective of selecting the best candidates. It violates Article 16(2).

The Rajasthan High Court applied Kailash Chand Sharma without hesitation. The bonus marks in Condition No.9, the Court held, created an artificial distinction between candidates who were otherwise equally qualified. A teacher posted in Jaipur who opted for Jaipur got 10 extra marks. A teacher posted in Jodhpur who opted for Jaipur got nothing. The only difference between them was their current place of posting—a factor that had nothing to do with their merit or suitability for the English Medium School position.

THE TEST: A classification based on place of posting or residence in public employment is unconstitutional unless authorised by a parliamentary law under Article 16(3) and has a rational nexus to the selection objective. Bonus marks for staying put fail both requirements.

Why the State’s argument failed

The State argued that the bonus marks were a policy choice, a way to prefer locally posted candidates. The Court was unimpressed. It noted that the previous year’s advertisement—dated 17 June 2023, issued under the same Rules of 2023—did not contain any such condition for bonus marks. This suggested, the Court observed, that the condition was an afterthought with no rational basis. The State’s own practice was inconsistent.

The Court also cited State of Himachal Pradesh v. Amar Nath Sharma & Others (1994 (4) SLR 436) for the proposition that there is no justification for providing weightage or incentive to a class of citizens not socially and educationally backward. The teachers receiving the bonus marks were already employed government servants. They were not a disadvantaged class. Giving them additional marks, the Court held, was arbitrary and violated Articles 14 and 16.

The bottom line for practitioners

This judgment is a clean application of two well-settled principles. First, statutory rules govern recruitment, not advertisements. Any condition in an advertisement that goes beyond the rules is ultra vires and void. Second, bonus marks based on residence or place of posting are constitutionally impermissible unless backed by a parliamentary law under Article 16(3). The State cannot create a preference for its own employees based on where they happen to be posted.

For advocates advising government departments, the lesson is clear: if you want to give bonus marks for local candidates, you need a law passed by Parliament, not a condition in an advertisement. For CFOs and founders who deal with government contracts or public employment schemes, the principle is the same: the governing rules are the ceiling. No advertisement can add benefits the rules do not provide.

The Court allowed the writ petitions, quashed Condition No.9, and directed the respondents to proceed with the selection strictly as per the Rules of 2023—without the 10 additional bonus marks. The stay applications and all pending applications were disposed of. Parties were to bear their own costs.

The bottom line: If your advertisement adds a benefit your statutory rules do not provide—especially one based on where a candidate lives or works—you are inviting a constitutional challenge you will almost certainly lose.