1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2083/2008 Rohitash Kumar vs Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. DATE OF ORDER: 27.7.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. PR Singh, for the petitioner. Mr. Ravi Bhansali, for the respondents. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. 933 posts were advertised for the post of Technical Helper vide advertisement published on 29th Oct., 2006, copy of which has been placed on record as Annex.7. The petitioner being aspirant for the post of Technical Helper possessing requisite educational qualification with ITI in Mechanic (Radio & TV) applied for the post. He was also called for interview and petitioner secured total marks 71.49. Since he has not been given appointment on the post of Technical Helper, therefore, petitioner sought information from the respondents about marks obtained by the last candidate appointed under the OBC category on the Technical Helper (Probationer Trainee) (Electrician/SBA/Electronics/RM) and in response to that, the petitioner was provided requisite information vide communication dated 8th July, 2008 (Annex.P/19) and petitioner has been informed that on the post of Technical Helper 2 (Electronics/RM) OBC category one Sh. Sunil Kumar Mahala was given appointment in the category of OBC, who secured 75.46 marks against the petitioner's marks 71.49. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the advertisement dated 29th Oct., 2006 (Annex.7) it is nowhere mentioned that the appointments will be given according to the trade in which the candidates are required and all the candidates qualified in any of the trade should have been given appointment to the post of Technical Helper irrespective of their technical qualification. It is also submitted that in the advertisement dated 29th Oct., 2006 (Annex.7) it has not been given that the appointment will be given categorywise in the particular trade on the post of Technical Helper. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in the trade in which the petitioner is qualified and appointment has been given by the respondents on the post of Technical Helper in the category of Technical Helper (Electronics/RM) OBC category, the petitioner ranks junior to the last appointee. It is also submitted that the appointment could have been given on the post of Helper, but looking to the requirement in the trade, a person who is having qualification in one trade cannot be appointed in another trade. I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case. 3 So far as contention of the petitioner that the advertisement dated 29th Oct., 2006 (Annex.7) is vague is concerned, the petitioner cannot challenge the advertisement after taking part in the process of selection to the stage of interview and thereafter, denial to the appointment to the post concerned. It appears that petitioner was fully aware that a person having a knowledge of a particular subject in technical field can get the appointment in that technical field only. A TV or Radio mechanic cannot be given appointment as Technical Helper to repair computer nor a person having qualification to repair computer could have been appointed as Technical Helper in the electrical department or motor department. Otherwise also, the petitioner who is expert in the particular trade is supposed to seek appointment for particular expertise, which he is possessing and cannot say that he could have been given appointment in any of the trade in the post of Technical Helper. Since the petitioner is ranking junior in the trade in which he is expert by his qualification than the appointee, therefore, on merit also, this petition has no force. Hence, the writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-