Harinder Singh Sidhu, J. - (1.) This judgment shall dispose of two appeals bearing LPA Nos.1816 of 2015 and 28 of 2016 as both arise out of the same judgment. For disposal of these appeals, the facts are being taken from LPA No.28 of 2016.
(2.) This Intra- Court appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent has been filed against the judgment dated 10.8.2015 of the learned Single Judge, whereby Civil Writ Petition No.3032 of 2014 filed by Gurtej Singh Sahota respondent No.1 was allowed. The appointment of Rakesh Kumar Goyal appellant as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in the Sant Longowal Institute of Engineering and Technology, Longowal (for short "the institute") was set aside and respondent No.1 was ordered to be appointed as such with all consequential benefits.
(3.) Briefly, the facts are that vide advertisement dated 23.2.2012, (hereinafter referred to as "the first advertisement"), the institute invited applications for filling up various posts including one post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical). The qualifications for the said post were specified in the advertisement, as per the then existing Rules as under:- "B.E./B.Tech Degree in Electrical Engineering with at least 60% marks or equivalent with at least 5 years experience in Government Department/Public Undertaking/Construction Agency of national repute not below the rank of Junior Engineer or equivalent." Respondent No.1 applied in response to the said advertisement. However, no selection was made pursuant thereto. Instead, the respondent institute issued another advertisement dated 15.1.2013 (hereinafter referred as "the second advertisement"), inviting applications for various posts including the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical). The last date for receipt of the applications was 16.02.2013. It was specified in the advertisement that details of qualifications and other requirements for the posts were available on the website of the institute (www .sliet.ac.in). The appellant as well as respondent No.1 applied in response to the second advertisement. The appellant was selected, whereas, respondent No.1 was placed at Sr.No.2 in the merit list.;