Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) THESE two writ petitions raise identical questions of law and fact and therefore they are being heard and decided together by this common judgment. The dispute pertains to the recruitment on the post of JEN -1 (Electrical/Mechanical/Civil/PLCC/C&I/FF) process of which was initiated by the respondent -Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. vide advertisement in July 2011. Candidates were required to submit on -line application latest by 30.07.2011. The date of competitive examination was fixed on 28.08.2011. As per the stipulation regarding educational qualification in Note (2) given below Clause -2 of advertisement (Ann. 1), candidates appearing in the final year/semester of Graduate Degree in Engineering/AMIE were also permitted to apply provided, their result of final year/semester is declared on or before the date fixed for competitive examination and they by that date acquire the minimum prescribed percentage of marks in Graduate Degree in Engineering/AMIE.
(2.) BOTH the petitioners are seeking appointment on the post of JEN -1 (Electrical) on the qualification of Bachelor of Technical Engineering (B.Tech.) in Electrical. In the case of petitioner -Jitendra Kumar Shrotriya, though he passed the 8th semester but result of his 7th semester was declared on 02.04.2011 by the respondent -University, wherein he secured more than 70% marks in written examination but was declared fail in aggregate because he secured only 19 out of 80 marks in the subject of Utilization of Electric Power, in which he was required to obtain 24 minimum (30%) pass marks. Petitioner applied for re -evaluation result of which was declared on 21.10.2011, wherein his marks were increased from 19 to 22 thus taking average of total 70.60% marks but still it fell short by 2 marks. However, the University declared him pass by awarding 2 grace marks. In the case of petitioner -Deepak Singh, result of his 8th semester was declared on 28.06.2012 and his mark -sheet was issued on 04.07.2012. Though he was declared pass but he was given lesser marks in Electrical Drives and their Control (ETDC), therefore, he applied for reevaluation of the answer -sheet of that subject. Result of reevaluation was declared on 30.10.2012 and he was declared pass but his mark sheet was issued to him on 30.11.2012. Shri Vigyan Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner in SBCWP No. 1738/2012 has submitted that call letter was sent to the petitioner for verification of various documents on 16.12.2011 and he appeared before the screening committee but he was shocked and surprised to see when he did not find his name in the list of selected candidates. Appointment letters were issued to other candidates and not to him. When petitioner -Jitendra Kumar Shrotriya met with the respondents, he was apprised that he could not be selected as his result of 7th semester re -evaluation 2011 was declared on 21.10.2011 after the cut off date as prescribed for selection process i.e. 28.08.2011. Shri Vigyan Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that application of the petitioner as well as one Shri Sandeep Mahawar was sent simultaneously to the University for re -evaluation in the same subject by Gyan Vihar College in which both of them studied. Learned counsel referred to letter of Deputy Registrar of that institute dt. 19.05.2011 in which name of the petitioner shown at Sr. No. 13 and that of Sandeep Mahawar at Sr. No. 17. Even though the University declared result of re -evaluation of said Sandeep Mahawar and two others well in time on 29.07.2011, who were shown to have passed but result of re -evaluation of the petitioner was declared belatedly on 21.10.2011. Learned counsel submitted that Sandeep Mahawar and two others have been appointed vide order dt. 25.01.2012 (Ann. 25) but case of the petitioner has not been considered for appointment on the post of AEN for no fault of his. Shri Vigyan Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his case has cited the Division Bench judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court at Shimla in Arun Gautam and Ors. vs. H.P. Technical Education Board and Ors. and another single bench judgment of Allahabad High Court in Sudhir Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
(3.) SHRI Tanveer Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for petitioner in SBCWP No. 7706/2013 has argued that theory of relation back has been held applicable even in the case of result of re -evaluation as it is owning to change of marks in the reevaluation, which is not a fault on the part of the student. Learned counsel further argued that petitioner -Deepak Singh stands at Merit No. 165 and call letter was issued to him for document verification. His candidature has been rejected only because the respondents have taken a hyper technical view of the matter on account of declaration of the result of reevaluation later than 28.08.2011 on 30.10.2012. There are still vacancies with the respondents. Shri Tanveer Ahmed has adopted the arguments made by Shri Vigyan Shah, learned counsel for petitioner -Jitendra Kumar Shrotriya in SBCWP No. 1738/2012 contending that petitioner in his case also, was deprived of appointment only because of belated declaration of the result of re -evaluation of the petitioner on 30.10.2012.;