[2025:RJ-JP:30002-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 394/2025 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16482/2022 1. State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Karauli. ----Appellant-Petitioner Versus Mahesh Kumar S/o Shri Sardar Singh, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Govind Nagar, Madarpur, Bharatpur, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan). ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG with Ms. Divya Rathore For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 05/08/2025 1. For the reasons stated in the Application No.554/2025 filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay, the same is allowed. 2. The issue raised in the present appeal is no more res integra. We find that earlier in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1360/2019: State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Manna Ram Jat and Anr., a specific argument was taken before the Division Bench that the respondent therein could not be treated to be entitled for grant of 30% bonus marks as they gained experience [2025:RJ-JP:30002-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-394/2025] in the SATCOM Project which the State has submitted was not a scheme of Panchayati Raj, it was, therefore, stated by the State that the appointment of the respondent therein was wrongful and their services have been rightly terminated. 3. The Division Bench examined the aspect and reached to the conclusion that the scheme of SATCOM was found under the Panchayati Raj Department and the eligibility clauses under advertisement mentioning to grant of bonus marks to the operators' working in a Scheme under Zila Parishad and Panchayati Raj Department, therefore, it was held that the bonus marks had rightly been granted, the termination was found to be illegal and suffered from infirmity of not giving an opportunity of hearing, also Special Leave Appeal (Civil) Diary No(s).21613/2020 was preferred by the State which too was dismissed. 4. The learned Single Judge in the present impugned judgment has followed the judgment passed in Manna Ram Jat (supra) case and has reached to the same conclusion of SATCOM being a Scheme, which was operated by the Zila Parishad and accordingly allowed the writ petition, directing the appellant(s) to grant bonus marks to the writ petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that in terms of the letter issued by the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Science and Technology dated 07.12.2009 (Annexure-R/1) placed along with reply, it is apparent that the Scheme was initiated by the Department of Science and Technology. [2025:RJ-JP:30002-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-394/2025] 6. Apart from the judgment which we have noticed, we have carefully considered the letter dated 07.12.2009 which we find addressed to the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bharatpur directing him along with Additional Chief Executive Officer as Nodal Officer to conduct the operation of Satellite Interactive Terminals (SIT) under Gramsat Project. Thus, it is apparent that the Scheme was being operated by the Zila Parishad and Panchayats and therefore, an employee who has worked on a Scheme which is operated by the Panchayati Raj would be entitled to the bonus marks. 7. The view already taken by the earlier Division Bench, upheld up to Supreme Court, therefore, has rightly been adopted by the learned Single Judge and we affirm the same. No case is made out to interfere with the D.B. Special Appeal No.1360/2019 and is dismissed accordingly. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J GAURAV/AVINASH/98