JUDGMENT 1. - Both the writ petitions involve the similar questions of fact and law and, therefore, are being decided together. The pleadings are complete in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3446/96 and the facts are being taken from the abovesaid writ petition. 2. The petitioners had completed part I and II of the Examination for diploma In Ayurved Compounder/Nurse training conducted by the Rajasthan University In the year 1991. After qualifying the examinations the petitioners were required to go for internship for six months which Internship training was to be given by the concerned institution. Their course could only stood completed if the Internship is completed. It is stated and also not denied that the petitioners after the declaration of the result approached the University authorities and also the respondent No. 2 for deputing the petitioners for internship training. No reply was received. The petitioners per-force filed the writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No 7769/92 and it was directed by Hon'ble N.L. Tibrewal on 31.1.1993 that the petitioners be deputed for internship in Ayurved hospitals and to be paid stipend of Rs. 200/- per month. As per the order of this Court the petitioners were taken in internship, which internship was completed by the petitioners in the month of September/October 1993. 3. Had the petitioners been put on internship training immediately after passing of the examination, they would have been considered to be belonging to the batch of 1991, but for the reason that they were deprived of the facility of internship and had to undergo internship by approaching this court and orders were passed in the year 1993 and they completed the internship in the year 1993 itself, the authorities had treated the petitioners to be belonging to the batch of 1993 instead of 1991. 4. Certain vacancies were to be filled-up for the recruitment to the post in the Ayurved Department under the Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homeopathy and Naturopathy Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. The petitioners applied for the post of Compounder/Nurse Grade II which posts were to be filled up 100% by direct recruitment. Advertisement was made in the month of May 1996. The petitioners fulfilling the qualifications applied for the recruitment. The petitioners applied for the post of Compounder/Nurse Grade II which posts were to be filled up 100% by direct recruitment. Advertisement was made in the month of May 1996. The petitioners fulfilling the qualifications applied for the recruitment. Selections were made as per batch-wise pertaining to the particular year even though the petitioners belonging to the batch of 1991, their names were not included in the year 1991 batch, but was included in the batch of the year 1993. Persons belonging to the batch of the year 1991 and 1992 had been offered appointment. The petitioners could not get the appointment on the ground that they were considered to be of the batch of 1993 and not of 1991. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this court with the prayer to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment against the post of Junior Compounder/Nurse in view of advertisement dated 1.5.1996 (Annex. 10) and to consider their names as if the petitioners belong to the batch of the year 1991. Notice was issued. Written statements have been filed. In the written statement it is not disputed that it was the duty of the college where the petitioners were given the admission for the said course or the university to have put the petitioners for internship training. This exercise was not done and ultimately with the interference of the court the petitioners were put in the internship in the year 1993 which was completed in the month of September/October 1993. However, because of none of their fault, the petitioners did loose the benefit of being treated in the batch of the year 1991. The submission made by the respondents in the written statement has no merits. The petitioners cannot be penalised and made to suffer because of the lapse on the part of the respondents themselves. Had there been no lapse on the part of either of the respondents, the petitioners would have been immediately put in internship training after qualifying part II Examination in the year 1991 itself and were entitled to be treated to belong to the batch of the year 1991. They missed not because of their fault but because of the high handedness or non-action or omission on the part of the respondents. Ultimately, they were put in internship in the year 1993. They missed not because of their fault but because of the high handedness or non-action or omission on the part of the respondents. Ultimately, they were put in internship in the year 1993. Because of the fact that the mistake committed in the year 1991 by the respondents was rectified in the year 1993, the entitlement of the petitioner must relate back to the year 1991, and thus the petitioners are to be treated as if they were put in internship in the year 1991 itself and had passed such training. 5. Even though the petitioners are entitled to be considered for the batch of 1991 and put in the list of 1991, but the counsel for the respondents states that all the vacancies available for the batch of 1991-92 and of 1993 have since been filled up and there is no vacancies available. Be it be so, but the petitioners are surely to be compensated for the lapse committed by the respondents. If any vacancy is available, the petitioners shall be appointed immediately against that vacancy and shall be entitled to the benefits as if they belong to the -batch of the year 1991 and if at present no vacancy is available, the petitioners shall be considered for appointment in future whenever any vacancy is made available and in that situation the petitioners shall be entitled to the benefit of belonging to the batch of 1991. 6. With the above-said observations, the writ petitions are allowed. The petitioners shall be entitled to the cost of Rs. 2,000/- per petition.Writ Petition Allowed With Costs Of Rs. 2000/. *******