JUDGMENT 1. - The appellants who were not parties before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition had sought permission to file this appeal as they were aggrieved by the order passed in the writ petition. The controversy relates to eligibility for employment to the post of Compounder/Nurse. It is common ground that the employment is given on the basis of merit as calculated on the basis of marks obtained by the candidate from amongst the candidate of his own batch. The batches are decided on the basis of acquiring educational qualification for eligibility in a particular year. The eligibility qualification is Secondary/Higher Secondary/Senior Secondary or equivalent along with two and a half years departmental training in Ayurvedic Nursing or three years diploma in Ayurvedic Nursing including internship. The respondent No. 3 had undergone the diploma course successfully for two and a half years but were not deputed for internship, for which they had to file a petition in this Court and under the directions of this Court, they were deputed for internship which they completed in the year 1993. 2. The question before the learned Single Judge was whether the petitioner could be considered to be of 1991 batch or 1993 batch. According to the petitioners they belong to 1991 batch and according to the respondents they belong to 1993 batch as they had completed the internship in the year 1993. The learned Single Judge held that the petitioners belong to 1991 batch and not to 1993 batch. The appellants are aggrieved by this order because they themselves belong to 1993 batch and if respondent No. 3 is treated to be belonging to 1991 batch, the chances of the appellants' appointment will get reduced. It is pointed out by the appellants that the learned Single Judge has granted the relief to respondent No. 3 under a mistaken impression that if they had been deputed on internship immediately after their passing the final examination of the course they would have completed their internship in the year 1991. It was pointed out that the petitioners cleared the final examination in the year 1992 and even if they had been deputed for internship immediately after the declaration of the result of the examination they could not have completed the internship in the year 1991 or 1992 but would have completed it in 1993 only. It was pointed out that the petitioners cleared the final examination in the year 1992 and even if they had been deputed for internship immediately after the declaration of the result of the examination they could not have completed the internship in the year 1991 or 1992 but would have completed it in 1993 only. According to the appellants, therefore, respondent No. 3 belong to 1993 batch only and not to 1991 batch. 3. The respondents who were petitioners before the learned Single Judge submitted that they are entitled to be considered as belonging to 1991 batch because they had passed the final examination in that year. However on a close scrutiny of material on record this contention is not borne out. From the petitions and documents supplied by the petitioners themselves it is clear that petitioner Sunsilal Palsania appeared for his final examination in December 1991. The mark-sheet, Annexure-1, was issued to him on 17th August, 1992. If he had been sent for 6 months' internship in the month of August 1992 itself, he would have completed the internship only in the year 1993. He was actually deputed for internship in the month of March, 1993 and according to the certificate of internship issued by Shri Bhagwati Ayurved Nurse Compounder Prashikshan Mahavidhalaya, Bhankrota, Jaipur on 26.11.1993 (Annexure-2 to the petition) respondent No. 3 Sunsilal Palsania was an intern in the institution from 31.3.1993 to 27.9.1993 and thus he completed his internship on 27.9.1993. 4. It is clear from the aforesaid facts that delay in deputing respondent No. 3 for internship did not effect him pre-judicially as even otherwise he would have completed internship in the year 1993 only and he would have been reckoned as belonging to 1993 batch only. 5. An attempt was made by the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 to suggest that batches should be decided on the basis of entry into the course and on that basis respondent No. 3 be treated as belonging to 1991 batch. If this is accepted, it will defy all logic as to how beginning of a course could be taken as a decisive fact for determining the batch. It would be extremely unreasonable that even if a candidate takes double the normal time to complete a training he would still be reckoned as belonging to his original batch of candidates along with whom he started the training. It would be extremely unreasonable that even if a candidate takes double the normal time to complete a training he would still be reckoned as belonging to his original batch of candidates along with whom he started the training. This would be extremely arbitrary specially when an earlier batch of candidates is preferred to a latter batch of candidates in the matter of appointments. Logical thing is to determine the batch on the basis of completion of the eligibility qualification. This would be fair to all and would not result in putting premium on comparative incompetence. The eligibility qualification being diploma course including internship and it being not disputed that the diploma can be conferred only after the internship is complete, the date of completion of internship in a particular year is the correct criterion to put the candidate in the batch of that particular year. Applying this test respondent No. 3 could be put only in 1993 batch. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed. The decision of the learned Single Judge is set-aside and respondent No. 3 is declared to belong to 1993 batch. There shall be no order as to costs.Appeal Allowed-Decision of Single Judge Set-Aside-Respondent No. 3 Declared to be of 1993 Batch. *******