SBCWP1746/1997 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1746/1997 {Manoj Kumar Sharma Vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board} Date of Order ::: 13.01.2010 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Mrs. Shweta Pareek for Shri Sanjay Pareek, Counsel for petitioner Mrs. Namita Parihar, Counsel for respondent #### By the Court:- Petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the prayer that the respondent – Rajsthan State Electricity Board be directed to consider his case for appointment on the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical). Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the condition imposed by the respondent that a candidate should have possessed B.E. (Electrical) Degree atleast with aggregate 70% marks, is wholly arbitrary and unjust. Learned counsel referred to the advertisement issued by the respondent to show that those candidates enrolled with the Man Power Department were granted relaxation. Referring to Para 8 of the pleadings made in SBCWP1746/1997 // 2 // the writ petition it was argued that the respondents themselves adopted a formula in which weightage was given to the candidates who passed their Secondary, Higher secondary, B.E. and M.E. from the Rajasthan. It is contended that the petitioner should have been considered for appoinment because the respondents did not receive 85 applications, which were the number of posts available with them, of candidates who had more than 70% marks. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that no such relaxation was granted to the candidates who were enrolled with the Man Power Department or as referred to in Para 8 of the writ petition. It is contended that no proof is made available on the record by the petitioner of the fact that any such relaxation was granted. Since the petitioner did not fulfill the minimum eligibility criteria laid down by the respondent of possessing 70% marks in B.E. (Electrical), he could not be appointed. Even if sufficient number of candidates were not available, that would not create any right in the petitioner to claim relaxation of the criteria. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on the record SBCWP1746/1997 // 3 // and keeping in view the fact that the petitioner did not show any proof that he possesses the minimum marks required by the respondent for the appointment or that any other candidate having lesser marks had been appointed, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//