Gurdeep Singh And ORS v. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd And ORS
I
1
!
Gurdeep Singh and others
...Petitioners
Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and others ...Respondents 2 "
(O&M) Sandeep Singh and others
...Petitioners
Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and others ...Respondents 3
(O&M) Khushvendra Sood
...Petitioner
Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and others ...Respondents 4
(O&M) Rajnish Kumar Pal
...Petitioner
Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and another ...Respondents 5 # #
(O&M) Jatin Jindal
...Petitioner
Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and another ...Respondents and 6
(O&M) Gaurav Vir Singh ,Petitioner
Versus
Chairman, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and others Respondents
$%&'&()*)+, $-. / , 01 2 22
Present: Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Salil Sablok and Mr. B.S. Patwalia, Advocates for the petitioners.
Mr. MPS Mann, Advocate for the petitioners (in CWP147102012) Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate for the respondent Corporation.
Mr. Tribhawan Singla, Advocate for the respondent Punjab Technical University. 22 . This order shall dispose of aforementioned six writ petitions as the common questions of law and facts are involved therein. However, for facility of reference the facts are being taken from CWP No.387 of 2014.
Vide advertisement No. 276/2012 dated 10.05.2012 the respondent - Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. invited applications for selection and appointment to various posts. These included 242 posts of Junior Engineers, out of which 215 posts were
for Junior Engineer /Electrical. Clause 6 of the advertisement dealt with the selection process. The eligible candidates were required to undergo written test and the merit was to be prepared on the basis of marks secured in the written test. There was to be a common test for J.E./ Electrical, A.P.A./ Electrical, A.J.S./Electrical, and the candidates applying for these posts were required to indicate the order of their preference of post, which would be allocated based upon their merit.
The written test was got conducted by the respondent Corporation through an independent outsource agency. A bunch of writ petitions including
# titled as 0 $452)+67 $+'%7&5*8* 2 1 $+'%7&5* ' were filed alleging large scale bungling and cheating in the said test. Taking note of the allegations, the respondentCorporation decided to annul the written test and hold a fresh one. In view of the said decision of the Corporation to reconduct the test, the writ petition was disposed of on 03.04.2013.
Accordingly, the respondentCorporation issued a notice for reconducting the written test for filling up the posts earlier advertised vide advertisement No.CRA276/2012. As per the said
notice, the test for the post of Assistant Engineers was to be held on 27.7.2013 and for the post of Junior Engineers and other posts, the test was to be held on 28.07.2013. Along with the notice, the respondents issued instructions dated 10.07.2013 (Annexure P4). Clause 5 thereof stated that candidates who have applied online for the post for which they do not have required qualification as indicated in the advertisement and have filled the application form by giving incorrect/incomplete information and admit card has been sent to them by online process, shall be appearing at their own risk. Their application/ candidature shall be liable for rejection outright at any stage during and after the process of the selection. Clause 6 stated that candidates who had applied for the post of A.E. (OT)/Electrical, J.E./Electrical, A.P.A.
/ Electrical, A.J.S./ Electrical, but have the qualification/ degree in Mechanical/Instrumentation and Communication/ Electrical and Electronics Engineering (i.e. other than the degree in Electrical Engineering), in case admit cards have been issued to such candidates through online process, they shall be appearing at their own risk and that in case such cases are found during selection process the candidature of such candidates for all posts would be rejected.
This condition No.6, as per which candidates holding a degree in Electrical and Electronic Engineering have been specifically declared to be ineligible for the post of J.E./ Electrical, has been impugned in the present petitions. Directions have also been prayed for that the respondents consider them eligible for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) by considering the degree in Electrical and Electronic Engineering as equivalent/ prescribed qualification for the above post.
The detail of the qualifications of the petitioners is as under: $9&:&%)%)+&5;* <=$>))($%)+
+)?&5*)%- 3872014 Gurdeep Singh B.Tech. (Electrical & Electronics) Punjab Technical University Karambir Singh B.Tech. (EEE) Punjab Technical University Manjinder Singh B.Tech. (EEE) Punjab Technical University Ashish B.Tech. (EEE) Punjab Technical University 49802014 Sandeep Singh B.Tech. (EEE) Punjab Technical University Nidhi Saini B.E. (EEE) Visveswaraiah Technological University, Belgaum, Karnataka Nitish Aggarwal B.E.(EEE) Panjab University, Chandigarh Pooja Kaul B.E. (EEE) Panjab University, Chandigarh 100872014 Khushvendra Sood B.E. (EEE) Panjab University, Chandigarh 210122014 Rajnish Kumar Pal B.E. (EEE) Panjab University 216462014 Jatin Jindal B.Tech. (EEE) NIT, Tiruchirapalli 147102012 Gaurav Vir Singh B.E. (EEE) Panjab University The test was held on 27/28.07.2013, the petitioners
appeared in both tests and were declared successful in the examination held for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) and were placed at Sr. No.49, 81, 101, 220 in the merit list. Meanwhile, candidates who possessed the degree of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, though placed higher in the merit list, were not issued appointment letters for the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical). Apprehending similar treatment in view of Clause 6 of the instructions (Annexure P4) as per which candidates possessing the degree of Electrical and Electronic Engineering would not be considered eligible for the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical), Junior Engineer (Electrical) etc, the petitioners filed the present petition impugning Clause 6 of the instructions (Annexure P4).
It is averred that the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar had issued notification dated 22.02.2013 (Annexure P7) clearly indicating that the syllabus of Electrical and Electronic Engineering and Electrical Engineering shall remain same for all batches upto 2012 session and shall be changed from 20132014 onwards.
It is the case of the petitioners that they possess degrees in Electrical and Electronic Engineering from Punjab Technical University and belong to the batch of 20072011, 20032007, 2008
2012 and 20072011 respectively. Further, Respondent No.3 Punjab Technical University in its communication to the respondent Corporation dated 01.08.2012 and 11.11.2013 had clarified that the syllabus is the same in the courses of B.Tech Electrical Engineering and B.Tech. Electrical and Electronic Engineering carried out by the University, and degree of B.Tech. Electrical Engineering and B.Tech Electrical and Electronic Engineering issued by the Punjab Technical University are equal. It has also been averred that the subject course for the degree in Electrical and Electronic Engineering and in Electrical Engineering are identical and same in all respects as is evident by the syllabus scheme (Annexure P10). It is hence contended that the petitioners cannot be held ineligible for the post of JE(Electrical).
On issuance of notice of motion, separate written statements have been filed by the respondents. In the short affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.3, the Punjab Technical University, it has been stated that as per notification dated 22.2.2013 (Annexure P7), the University had already declared that syllabus of Electrical and Electronic Engineering and Electrical Engineering is same upto session 2012. It has been further stated that in response to the letter
of PSPCL, the respondentUniversity had informed that the courses for both B.Tech (Electrical Engineering) and B.Tech. (Electrical and Electronic Engineering) are the same.
In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, it has been stated that the petitioners do not fulfill the qualification laid down in the statutory rules governing the service conditions of Junior Engineer (Electrical), nor do they fulfill the qualification as stipulated in the advertisement, which is strictly as per the qualification prescribed in the statutory regulations. It is asserted that the instructions (Annexure P4) are in consonance with the Regulations governing the post and the instructions were issued only with a view to avoid any confusion at a later stage. It is stated that the petitioners have not challenged the statutory regulations and the advertisement and having participated in the selection process cannot now be permitted to impugn the same.
In response to the averments in the writ petition that in the past the respondentCorporation has considered and appointed persons possessing the qualification of degree in Electrical and Electronic Engineering, it has been stated that after the formation of the Corporation consequent upon the unbundling the erstwhile
Punjab State Electricity Board, no person with the qualification of Electrical and Electronic Engineering has been selected and appointed as Junior Engineer (Electrical).
The petitioners have filed replication in which it has been stated that on the representation made by the petitioners and others similarly situated, the respondentCorporation vide its office order dated 01.03.2013 modified by office order 15.01.2014 constituted a committee to consider the equivalence of Electrical and Electronic Engineering with Electrical Engineering for the post of Assistant Engineer (O.T.)/ Electrical to be applicable for future recruitment.
The committee after a detailed examination of the issues concluded that the Electrical Engineering and Electrical & Electronics Engineering can be considered equivalent to the maximum extent for all intents and purposes and will fully fulfill the requirement of PSPCL for which it recruits Assistant Engineer (Electrical) and recommended that the same may be considered for future recruitment. Thereafter, the Board vide agenda item No.50 dated 30.01.2014 took a conscious decision to amend the Recruitment Rules and made holders of degree in Electrical and Electronic Engineering eligible for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) (Annexure P15).
the Regulations have been amended and in the subsequent advertisement dated 4.9.2014 (Annexure P9) issued by the Corporation inviting applications for recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer (OT Electrical) degree in Electrical & Electronic Engineering has been included as a qualification for the said post. Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised the following arguments:
(i) Once a technical body on clarification sought by the employer grants equivalence to a degree prescribed by it, the employer cannot ignore or interpret the equivalence. (ii) Once the Corporation after due consideration of the matter consequent on a representation submitted by the petitioners and others affected, concludes that the degree of Electrical and Electronic Engineering is not only equivalent but also higher than the Electrical Engineering, then the benefit of that decision has to relate back and be applicable to the case of the petitioners.
(iii) Once a finding is arrived at that a qualification is a higher qualification in the same line then even if equivalence is not granted, the holder of a higher qualification has to be held eligible for the post. (iv) Neither the statutory regulation nor the advertisement made the petitioners ineligible for the post. Clause 6 in the instructions (Annexure P4) which
indicates otherwise is only a guideline and cannot supersede either the statutory rules or the advertisement. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has argued as under:
(i) The present petition is liable to be dismissed as the petitioners did not challenge the advertisement in the first instance.
(ii) The petitioners did not come to the Court immediately after the issuance of the instructions (Annexure P4), which specifically held them to be ineligible. The petitioners having participated in the test and taken their chances cannot later turn around and impugn the eligibility conditions.
(iii) The petitioners are guilty of suppression of facts. In their online applications, they mentioned that that they possessed the qualification of Electrical Engineering and it is only because of that, their online application was entertained and they were issued admit cards. (iv) Granting any relief to the petitioners would be inequitable and prejudice many similarly situated candidates, who may not have applied considering that they were ineligible.
(v) If at all, the petition has to be allowed then all the posts, which have been kept reserved for the petitioners
by various interim orders should be made available to all candidates possessing the degree of Electical and Electronic Engineering and the posts should be filled by inviting fresh applications.
I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties. The qualification for the post of Junior Engineer(Electrical) as per the Regulations existing at the time of issue of the advertisment has been reproduced in the written statement filed by respondent 1 & 2 and is as under:
!
"# $% !&'( $
"$ )
*+' !, -. / $
$$12$34 !4#0!4
/ 0 $
$$ 12 $3 5 .
.
*+'
6),# 67)
/ 0 12 $3$)
) , The same qualification was prescribed for Junior Engineers in the advertisement as under:
$ , 4 5 '
!
6
'
6
!6
!
.
9 ) $ " $ !&'( $ $
* +'
!, -. / 0$
$$ 12$34 !4#0!4
/ 0 $
$$ 12 $35 .
*+'6),# 67) / 12$3$
9
&: ;
& <- '
) ,
0
=9
1
< + 6
6 !
6
!
:
< 6
6 !
70 70
6
!
70
:
.
!
) $
:
" ( $> ) $
"4 !4#0!4
67) >) $ ?,
? ,$$
!, .
, .
Thus, for Junior Engineer/ Auxilliary Plant Attendant/ Assitant Junior Specialist/ Supervisor Instrumentation, the basic professional qualification required was a full time regular 3/4 years Diploma from an institute recognized by State/ Central Govt. with minimum 60% marks or BE/ B.Tech. /B.Sc. Engineering with a minimum of 60% marks or equivalent degree recognized by AICTE or AMIE with at least 60% marks from Institution of Engineers (India) Calcutta. The advertisment further indicated that for Junior Engineer/ Electrical, Aux. Plant Attendant/ Elect. Assistant Junior Specialist/
Electrical, the requisite degree, diploma etc. (i.e., the basic professional qualification required) was to be in the discipline of Electrical Engineering. For Aux. Plant Attendant/ Mech, Asstt. Junior Specialist/ Mech. the basic qualification was required in the discipline of Mechanical Engineering. For Junior Engineer (Civil), degree prescribed was in Civil Engineering.
It is clear from a perusal of the Regulations and the advertisement that for Junior Engineer (Electrical) the essential qualification specfied is a degree/diplima etc. in the discipline of Electrical Engineering. There is no provision therein that a degree/ diploma in an equivalent discipline would also make for eligibility. The equivalence referred to in the main column `basic and professional qualification' is only in relation to a degree recognized by AICTE or AMIE as equivalent to BE/ B.Tech. /B.Sc. Engineering. This caters to a situation where the AICTE or AMIE may confer a degree in Engineering with a nomenclature different from BE/ B.Tech./ B.Sc. Engineering. This equivalence has nothing to do with the discipline in which the Engineering degree is required. The specific discipline in which the degree is required is clearly specified against each post or group of posts and there is no equivalence
provision in the regard thereto.
In this view of the matter, even if the degree in Electrical and Electronic Engineering is to be considered as equivalent to a degree in Electrical Engineering that would not further the cause of the petitioners in view of the settled legal position that the employer can insist on a strict and literal adherence to the qualifications prescribed in the statute and the advertisement and the absence of any provision therein making those possessing an equivalent qualification also eligible, would foreclose any claim of those possessing equivalent or even higher qualification for appointment to the said post.
In this regard, reference may be made to the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in 29=%%?*2%$%&$5-$+$$+' $+%7&5. "
!1
=+4$@! . wherein, it was observed as under: @ #0 +
0
0 0$'9 0
/A+
+ 0 5 /0 0 $' 0
' 0 0 .
- 'A $$/0 $ ' 0 0$' /3 //0
0
.
/0 0 0
$+ 5 #0A // 0
3
0 0 $ 0 0 B+ 0 + .' , 5 'A
+ / 0 0
'0 0 5 ' + $ . 0 /0 0 0$'9 0 +/5 #0 6. - / 0 + 'A 0 ( C . $ 0 $
.
00 + '0 0 5 $' '+ . A+ $ 0 . 9 .
0/00 0 0 $' . 3
.
0D 0 . /+$ A
.
/ 0 'A 0 .' 0 0 5
.
$' 0. 5 B+ $ .
0
5
' +/ 0 $ 3 00 $ 0 $+
$'$ 0$ 0B+#0 A $ 5 $' 0. 0
0.
$
0.
$ /0 . 0$ / 0. 0 B+ 0 0$ / ) $
' 0 . $
.
0 /0 0
'/$
+' 0$'9 /0 +
$
$ 5 .
' //0 0+ +./'5'
/ 0 /0 05 ++' 6 +' '$ 0 ) 0 A 0 9 /0. 0 $
0 $ / 0 0 +0 )
'
0 0 $'+ $ '
#0 / $ 0 ' + 0 0 0
0$
0 /0 0 0 0 '
!
"
#$ +$ 06
+ ' 5 . 0A 0
0 $/0
. E'+3
%
&
$!
"'$# /0
$ 0 0 0. $ /
0 '/
5 0 / A
( "%)
!$"
* 0 C0 .
0+ '0+. 0 0
$ 5 A 0 /
' 0
. ' /0 0 $ 0 + ' +' 0 0 #0A 5 0. + / +'+
'.
A 0 0 $ 0/ 0/
0
0 0+$ ' 35 0 0 0 ++
0 0 5 . A 0
'0 0 0 0A/+ . 0
$'/+ ' 0 '
F This view has been reaffirmed in subsequent decisions of this Court.
But the matter does not rest here. As has been stated in the replication filed by the petitioners, on their representation the matter was got examined by the Corporation and a Committee was constituted to consider the equivalence of Electrical and Electronic Engineering with Electrical Engineering for the post of Assistant Engineer (O.T.)/ Electrical to be applicable for future recruitment. The Committee after a detailed study concluded that Electrical Engineering and Electrical & Electronic Engineering can be
considered equivalent to the maximum extent for all intents and purposes and will fully fulfil the requirement of PSPCL for which it recruits Assistant Engineer (Electrical) and recommended that the same may be considered for future recruitment. Thereafter, the Board vide agenda item No.50 dated 30.01.2014 took a conscious decision to amend the Recruitment Rules making holders of degree in Electrical and Electronic Engineering eligible for the post of Assistant Engineer/ Electrical and also Junior Engineer (Electrical). The Regulations have accordingly been amended and in the subsequent advertisement dated 4.9.2014 issued by the Corporation inviting applications for recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer (OT)/ Electrical, the degree in Electrical and Electronic Engineering has been recognized as a qualification for the post.
It is this decision, which comes to the rescue of the petitioners. Though the decision/ amendment has been specifically made applicable to subsequent recruitments, but the statutory recognition of equivalence needs to be given full effect to and the petitioners cannot be denied the benefit thereof.
by the respondent corporation reveals that the committee compared the core subjects which pertain exclusively to Electrical Engineering and are studied in the basic Electrical Engineering with the courses studied in Electrical & Electronic Engineering. It found that Thapar University imparts four years course only in Basic Electrical Engineering, whereas, Punjab University offers degree only in Electrical & Electronic Engineering. Punjab Technical University offers degree in both the disciplines. As Thapar University is one of the premier Engineering Institutes in the country, the Committee proceeded by taking the subjects pertaining to basic Electrical Engineering offered by Thapar University as base for comparison.
It was concluded that the Electrical & Electronic Engineering course offered by Punjab Technical University & Punjab University include almost all the subjects that are offered by Thapar University in its basic Electrical Engineering course barring few very exceptions. Accordingly, it was concluded that Electrical Engineering and Electrical & Electronic Engineering can be considered to be equivalent to the maximum extent for all intents and purposes. At this stage, it may be relevant to note that a Division Bench of Delhi High Court in !# ; titled *)*7$?
+)++')$$+'%7&5*, decided on November 26, 2012 had examined this issue earlier and concluded that Electrical and Electronic Engineering is not only equivalent with Electrical Engineering but is also a little deeper course in that it not only subsumes the entire Electrical Course but also imparts something extra. The relevant observations of the Court are as under: @ /A /+B +
5 . /$ 0.
0 $ $ $>
' / 0. 5 . 0 + / $ 0 0 '$$ '
5 . $
' /
: 6$ A 0 .3 0 0 .' $ 0 4#0
,#%),6C /
0 4#0
,#%),6C6( ,#%D),A/0 0
A
A
A ' 0+B
,#%),6C $ $ +
/ 0 ,#%D), 0
/0' 0
4#0 ,#%),6C6(
,#%D), +$ 0
' 0 4#0
,#%),6C> $ 3 /
#0 + $ 0 +' 0
+. $$ 0
0
+5 0 $ 0 0 0 4#0 ,#%),6C 6( ,#%D), 5 . 04#0 ,#%),6C
) $ $ 0 . $
$'$ +' 0) .' 0) " 4#0 ,#%),6C 6(
,#%D),5 . 4#0 ,#%),6C6 + G 3
/0 0 $'
. .
/
,#%),6C
-)
%)- 0 H
$ , C A 6 0 ' ) C A 40 H.' C A #0$ / , C - 6 0 ') C 0 /5 . F Before proceeding any further it may be mentioned that one consequence of the decision of the Corporation to grant equivalence to the degree in Electrical and Electronic Engineering with Electrical Engineering and the subsequent amendment of the regulations is that a major objection of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent Corporation that the petitioners have not challenged the regulations and the advertisement and that having participated in the exam they cannot be permitted to impugn the conditions lose all
significance.
Ld. Counsel for the respondents has also argued that the petitioners cannot be given the benefit of this decision which would be applicable to future recruitments. He has stressed that extending the benefit of this to the petitioners would be illegal, inequitable and be a fraud on the others who possessed the degree in Electrical and Electronic Engineering but did not apply for the post as the advertisement expressly made them ineligible. In the this regard, reference has been made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in )*%5)(%>>&(%5$+'7$)59$+8)A)$+$6$5$9 2()$> &>$5& &*)'&+%)$>2(7>2()&%-! ?* 5):=5$2=+'$5) &?). "" !2#//)n particular to the following observations have been relied upon:
+!) $ 0+ +' 0 /0 . $ $
5
$ $
0$A $ '+ / 0
0 ' 0
#0 . 0/0 0 $ . + 5 0 0
+ /00 0 + 0' 0 5 $
0. $ ) $
+
/ 0
5
0 $ ' 0 0 5 + 0+ ' 0 0 E 0 0# + 0 0 F In my view the said judgment would not be applicable to the facts of this case. In that case the qualification prescribed for a Grade I and Grade II Teacher (Post Graduate Teacher and Trained Graduate Teacher) was a second class degree in M.A. The petitioner therein had passed M.A. in the third division and was wrongly offered appointment. But when on checking of her certificates, she was found to be ineligible having passed in the third division instead of the second division required, she was refused appointment. She approached the Administrative Tribunal which passed an order directing the authorities to appoint her.
One of the reasons given by the Tribunal was that there was no other candidate available who had better marks.
advertisement that only candidates having second division were eligible. It was in this context that the Hon'ble Supreme Court made the observation extracted above which has been relied on by the Ld. Counsel for the respondentcorporation.
The said observation may not be attracted in the present case. Here, it is not a case of a person with inferior qualification being considered eligible. When the Corporation arrived at the conclusion that Electrical Engineering and Electrical & Electronic Engineering can be considered equivalent, and accordingly amended the regulations, it only recognized an existing factThis was not akin to lowering the qualifications than those prescribed in the advertisement or appointing those not qualified like in the case before the Supreme Court.
No doubt, there may be a number of persons who had the degree in Electrical and Electronic Engineering, but did not apply in view of the stipulation that only persons possessing a degree in Electrical Engineering were eligible. But the petitioners were the valiant ones, who convinced of the justice of their cause, ventured to challenge the condition and simultaneously waged a two pronged battle, one by approaching the Court and secondly pursuing their
representation with the respondent Corporation. The Corporation has now vindicated their stand holding that the two qualifications are equivalent and amended the regulations for future. The part that the Corporation has left undone the Court is impelled to do i.e., extend the benefit of the equivalence and the resultant eligibility to the petitioners. In my view, the benefit of the decision of the Corporation legitimately accrues to the petitioners. What the respondent Corporation, in effect has done, is not to alter the qualifications for the posts. If it were so, then it could surely be made applicable only for future recruitments. But what has been done is only to declare, confirm and recognise the equivalence which already existed in fact and thereby bring the regulations in accord therewith. Thus, in fact, the petitioners were eligible when they applied and the mere fact that this recognition came later ought not to work to their prejudice. Accordingly, I hold that the petitioners are liable to be treated as eligible for the posts.
No doubt, in an ideal situation the benefit of the equivalence now granted ought to have been extended to all the candidates similarly placed as the petitioners i.e., who could have applied for the posts advertised vide CRA276/2012 dated 10.5.2012
but did not apply because of the stipulation in the advertisement regarding qualification. But the march of events cannot be reversed. The clock cannot be set back. The test was held on 27/28.07.2013, the result whereof has been announced and presumably the selected candidates have been appointed. But by interim orders passed in CWPs No.387, 4980, 10087, 21012 and 21646 of 2014 posts in the respective categories of the petitioners have been ordered to be kept vacant. In these circumstances, it is but fair that the benefit of the interim orders enures to the petitioners in these cases.
The argument of the respondents that a written examination be conducted for these reserved posts, wherein, all the candidates who possessed the degree of Electrical and Electronic Engineering on the date of advertisement be permitted to participate would not be fair and equitable in the circumstances, as such candidates had neither applied in response to the advertisement nor challenged the condition in a court of law. But fairness and equality of treatment would require that the benefit be extended to all such candidates who like the petitioners possess the degree of Electrical and Electronic Engineering and had taken the test on 27/28.7.2013, even though they may not have filed writ petitions.
Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of with the following directions:
*. ". . $+' # #
:
A merit list of all the candidates (including the petitioners in these five writ petitions) who possess the degree of Electrical and Electronic Engineering and had taken the written test held on 27/28.07.2013 be prepared. Appointments to the posts kept reserved vide interim orders in these petitions be made from amongst those highest in this merit list.
:
The petitioner in CWP No.14710 of 2012 had appeared for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) advertised vide Advertisement No.CRA272/2011 dated 16.11.2011 whereby applications for 260 posts of Junior Engineers (Electrical) were invited. He belongs to the Other Backward Classes category. He appeared in the written test and his name figured at Sr. No. 26 in the select list. But he was not appointed as he did not possess the degree in Electrical Engineering but had the degree of Electrical & Electronic Engineering, which he had acquired from Punjab
University. Only 45 candidates (including the petitioner) had cleared the written test. Hence, a fresh advertisement No.CRA276/2012 was issued inviting applications for 215 posts of Junior Engineers (Electrical) which had remained unfilled. There is nothing on record to indicate that he had applied pursuant to the 2012 advertisment. There is no interim order in this case for keeping any post vacant for the petitioner. In the facts of this case the only direction that can be issued, is that, if there exists any unfilled post from among the 260 posts of Junior Engineers (Electrical) advertised vide advertisement No.CRA272/2011, (after excluding those reserved vide interim orders refered to above), the petitioner be offered appointment against the same.
$-. / 22 !
%=>