J.R. Chopra, J. - (1.) THESE two writ petitions raise common questions of facts and law and, therefore, they were heard together and are being decided by a common order.
(2.) THE facts, necessary to be noticed for the disposal or those two writ petitions briefly stated, are: that the respondent Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur (for short 'the Board') issued an advertisement for selection to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) in the year 1972, wherein the petitioner Amritlal Kaushik was selected. It further issued an advertisement for selection to the post of Overseer (Electrical) in the year 1976 and in that selection, petitioner Kurbansingh was selected as Overseer (Electrical). It was submitted that earlier in the Rajasthan State Electricity Board Service of Engineers (Recruitment, promotion and Seniority etc.) Regulations, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations'), there was only the post of Junior Engineer but in the year 1973, the Regulations were aconded vide Notification No.RSEB/Rules/D.33 dated October 15,1973 and it was provided that the words 'Junior Engineer' wherever appeared in the Regulations be substituted by the words 'Junior Engineer/Overseer'. Thus, the selection of petitioner Kurbansingh was made after this amendment in the Regulations and the selection of petitioner Amritlal Kaushik was made prior to this amendment in the Regulations. It was contended that when appointment was given to the petitioner Amritlal Kaushik, he was appointed on the post of Overseer (Electrical/Mechanical) inspite of the fact that the post of Junior Engineer was advertised vide Advertisement Annexure -Rule dated 9th May, 1972. Even while calling for interview, the petitioner Shri Amritlal Kaushik was called for interview for selection to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical), which is clear from the Interview call letter p.1 dated 30.9.1972. He that as it may, petitioners Amritlal Kaushik and Kurban Singh both were appointed as Overseers (Electricals) because they were diploma holders.
(3.) IT is alleged that in the year 1978, the respondent Board took a decision that the persons possessing diploma in Engineering be designated as Junior Engineer Gr.II and the persons possessing degree in Engineering be designated as Junior Engineer Gr.I. The contention of the petitioners is that the same process of selection took place by which Junior Engineers Gr.I and Junior Engineers Gr.II or for that matter Junior Engineers/Overseers were selected and this classification of Junior Engineer/Overseer or Junior Engineer Gr.I Junior Engineer Gr.II is based on different qualifications that are being held by two categories of persons. According to the petitioners, after selection, the diploma holders and degree holders both are required to perform the same kind of work and, therefore, it is a misnomer to designate them as Junior Engineer Gr.I and Junior Engineer Gr.II or Junior Engineer /Overseer.;