JUDGMENT :

Saral Srivastava, J.

1. Heard Sri Akash Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Abhishek Srivastava learned counsel for the respondents-Corporation.

2. The petitioner through the present writ petition has prayed for a direction upon respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Junior Engineer Electrical (Trainee) in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd.

3. During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent has passed an order on 25.3.2017 rejecting the candidature of the petitioner which was challenged by the petitioner by way of amendment in the writ petition.

4. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to an Advertisement No. 9/V5A/2016/JE notified on 9.10.2016 inviting online application for the post of Junior Engineer Electrical (Trainee) under the Electrical Engineer category, Junior Engineer Civil (Trainee) under the category of Civil Engineering, he has submitted application for being considered on the said post.

5. According to the petitioner, he has three years diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering from Tamil Nadu Polytechnic College, Madurai recognized by U.G.C. Thus, he possesses the essential qualification for appointment on the said post. The petitioner submitted the online application under the O.B.C. category. In response to his application, he was issued Admit Card allotting Roll No. 1117201837 for CBT to be held on 11.11.2016. The petitioner appeared in an online examination. Thereafter, a final response sheet was uploaded by respondent No. 2-Electricity Service Commission on its website. As per the final response sheet, the petitioner has obtained 117.25 marks out of a total of 200 marks. Respondent No. 2 declared the result of shortlisted candidates on 7.12.2016 in which the name of the petitioner also figured in. Thereafter, the petitioner was called for documents verification by letter dated 7.12.2016 on 12.12.2016. The petitioner appeared before the authority concerned on 12.12.2016 and presented all his documents. Thereafter, the final select list was published on 3.1.2017 in which the name of the petitioner did not find a place.

6. According to the petitioner, the cut-off marks for the O.B.C. candidate were 117 marks whereas the petitioner had obtained 117.25 marks even then, he was not declared successful. The impugned order reveals that the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that he does not possess the essential qualification for appointment on the post in question.

7. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner possesses a diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering which is equivalent to a diploma of Electrical Engineering, which is clear from the chart mentioned in paragraph 13 of the writ petition showing the subjects of the petitioner and subjects of one Jai Narain Chauhan and Amit Kumar, who have obtained three years diploma in Electrical Engineering. The petitioner in support of his aforesaid contention has also enclosed the mark sheet of Jai Narain Chauhan and Amit Kumar.

8. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that the petitioner did not possess minimum qualifications as prescribed. It is also stated that power is with the Corporation to lay down the required qualification for appointment on the post in question. It is also stated that the diploma possessed by the petitioner is not equivalent to the diploma in Electrical Engineering as the syllabus of both the courses is at the variance of 20% to 30%.

9. The petitioner filed a rejoinder-affidavit denying the averments made in the counter-affidavit.

10. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.

11. Before proceeding with the matter, it would be relevant to reproduce qualification No. 4 (B) in the advertisement prescribed for recruitment for the post of Junior Engineer (T