GARG, J. - (1.) BOTH the above writ petitions are being decided by this common order as in both of them common questions of law are involved. FACTS OF WRIT PETITION NO. 2319/1998
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondents on 13. 7. 97 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents be directed to offer appointment to the petitioner on the post of Electrician as the appointment had already been given to the less meritorious candidates to the petitioner and further the appointment of respondent No. 4 to 6 who were less meritorious than the petitioner be declared illegal and be quashed. The facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under: i) That the petitioner passed the High School Examination from the Secondary Education Council, Uttar Pradesh in the year 1987 and the Intermediate examination from the same Board in the year 1995. The petitioner also possessed the ITI certificate in electrical issued by the Principal of ITI, Barely, Uttar Pradesh which is under the control of State Vocational Training Council, Uttar Pradesh. Copies of marksheets of the High School, Intermediate and ITI have been produced as Annex. P/1 to P/3 respectively. ii) That the petitioner got registered his name with the Employment Exchange, Hanumangarh in the year 1997 vide registration card (Annex. P/4 ). iii) That further case of the petitioner is that he was also having experience certificate dtd. 26. 6. 1997 (Annex. P/5) as electrician issued by the Rajasthan State Sahkari Spinning and Ginning Mills Federation, Hanumangarh. iv) Further case of the petitioner is that in the month of January, 1998, the respondent No. 2 (Joint Director Personnel (I. R.), RSEB, Jaipur) invited applications for the post of Electrician to be posted under the respondent No. 3 (Chief Engineer (STPS), RSEB, Suratgarh ). v) Further case of the petitioner is that panel of suitable candidates was called from the employment exchange Hanumangarh and Sri Ganganagar. The said panel was called for 40 vacancies of Electrician which were under the respondent No. 3 (Chief Engineer (STPS), RSEB, Suratgarh ). As the name of the petitioner was registered with the Employment Exchange, Hanumangarh, his name was sent by the employment exchange to the respondent No. 2 (Joint Director Personnel (I. R.), RSEB, Jaipur) for the post of Electrician. vi) That on 7. 2. 98, the petitioner was intimated by the respondent No. 2 (Joint Director Personnel (I. R.) RSEB, Jaipur) to fill up the application form for the post of Electrician and to appear for interview on 24. 2. 1998 along with the requisite documents mentioned in the letter dtd. 7. 2. 98 (Annex. P/6 ). vii) Further case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of letter dtd. 7. 2. 98, the petitioner submitted his application form along with all the requisite documents desired by the respondent No. 2 (Joint Director Personnel (I. R.), RSEB, Jaipur) and he was interviewed on 5. 3. 98 for the post of Electrician. viii) Further case of the petitioner is that the selection on the post of Electrician was to be made purely on the merit basis i. e. the marks obtained by the candidates in their educational qualifications, but there were no marks for the interview. ix) Further case of the petitioner is that as per the educational qualification, the petitioner's total percentage was 68. 28, whereas respondent No. 5 (Pawan Kumar) was having 67. 85% and respondent No. 6 (Ram Dass) was having 67. 14%. Further respondent No. 4 (Jagdish Prasad) was having equal marks with the petitioner, but he had no experience. Thus, the petitioner was having more marks than respondents No. 5 and 6 and equal marks with respondent No. 4. x) Further case of the petitioner is that the respondents issued a list (Annex. P/7) of selected candidates in which the names of respondents No. 4 to 6 were shown at serial No. 20, 21 and 25. xi) Further case of the petitioner is that the persons having less marks than the petitioner were selected for the post of Electrician whereas the name of the petitioner had not been included in the select list. Hence, this writ petition with the abovementioned prayer. In this writ petition, the main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since respondents No. 4 to 6 who were less meritorious than the petitioner, had been selected on the post of Electrician, denial of appointment to the petitioner on the post of Electrician is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondent No. 1 to 3 admitting that no doubt the petitioner had secured more marks in comparison to respondents No. 5 and 6 and the petitioner had equal marks with the respondent No. 4, but since the petitioner was not bonafide resident of Hanumangarh/sri Ganganagar and since he had passed the examinations of High School, Intermediate and ITI from Uttar Pradesh, therefore, he was not selected and hence writ petition be dismissed. Heard the counsel for the parties.
(3.) THERE is no dispute on the point that the petitioner's percentage was higher than the percentage of respondents No. 5 and 6 and he was having equal marks with the respondent No. 4. There is also no dispute on the point that the petitioner passed his High School, Intermediate and ITI from Uttar Pradesh. There is also no dispute on the point that his name was registered with the employment Exchange, Hanumangarh vide registration card (Annex. P/4 ). ;