Judgment 1. These two writ petitions raise identical questions of law and fact and therefore they are being heard and decided together by this common judgment. 2. The dispute pertains to the recruitment on the post of JEN-1 (Electrical/Mechanical/Civil/PLCC /C&I/FF) process of which was initiated by the respondent-Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. vide advertisement in July 2011. Candidates were required to submit on-line application latest by 30/7/2011. The date of competitive examination was fixed on 28/8/2011. As per the stipulation regarding educational qualification in Note (2) given below clause-2 of advertisement (Ann.1), candidates appearing in the final year/semester of Graduate Degree in Engineering/AMIE were also permitted to apply provided, their result of final year/semester is declared on or before the date fixed for competitive examination and they by that date acquire the minimum prescribed percentage of marks in Graduate Degree in Engineering/AMIE. 3. Both the petitioners are seeking appointment on the post of JEN-1 (Electrical) on the qualification of Bachelor of Technical Engineering (B.Tech.) in Electrical. In the case of petitioner-Jitendra Kumar Shrotriya, though he passed the 8th semester but result of his 7th semester was declared on 2/4/2011 by the respondent-University, wherein he secured more than 70% marks in written examination but was declared fail in aggregate because he secured only 19 out of 80 marks in the subject of Utilization of Electric Power, in which he was required to obtain 24 minimum (30%) pass marks. Petitioner applied for re-evaluation result of which was declared on 21/10/2011, wherein his marks were increased from 19 to 22 thus taking average of total 70.60% marks but still it fell short by 2 marks. However, the University declared him pass by awarding 2 grace marks. In the case of petitioner-Deepak Singh, result of his 8th semester was declared on 28/6/2012 and his mark-sheet was issued on 4/7/2012. Though he was declared pass but he was given lesser marks in Electrical Drives and their Control (ETDC), therefore, he applied for reevaluation of the answer-sheet of that subject. Result of reevaluation was declared on 30/10/2012 and he was declared pass but his mark sheet was issued to him on 30/11/2012. 4. Though he was declared pass but he was given lesser marks in Electrical Drives and their Control (ETDC), therefore, he applied for reevaluation of the answer-sheet of that subject. Result of reevaluation was declared on 30/10/2012 and he was declared pass but his mark sheet was issued to him on 30/11/2012. 4. Shri Vigyan Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner in SBCWP No.1738/2012 has submitted that call letter was sent to the petitioner for verification of various documents on 16/12/2011 and he appeared before the screening committee but he was shocked and surprised to see when he did not find his name in the list of selected candidates. Appointment letters were issued to other candidates and not to him. When petitioner-Jitendra Kumar Shrotriya met with the respondents, he was apprised that he could not be selected as his result of th semester re-evaluation 2011 was declared on 21/10/2011 after the cut off date as prescribed for selection process i.e. 28/8/2011. Shri Vigyan Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that application of the petitioner as well as one Shri Sandeep Mahawar was sent simultaneously to the University for re-evaluation in the same subject by Gyan Vihar College in which both of them studied. Learned counsel referred to letter of Deputy Registrar of that institute dated 19/5/2011 in which name of the petitioner shown at Sr.No.13 and that of Sandeep Mahawar at Sr.No.17. Even though the University declared result of re-evaluation of said Sandeep Mahawar and two others well in time on 29/7/2011, who were shown to have passed but result of re-evaluation of the petitioner was declared belatedly on 21/10/2011. Learned counsel submitted that Sandeep Mahawar and two others have been appointed vide order dated 25/1/2012 (Ann.25) but case of the petitioner has not been considered for appointment on the post of AEN for no fault of his. Shri Vigyan Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his case has cited the Division Bench judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court at Shimla in Arun Gautam and ors. Vs. H.P. Technical Education Board and ors. and another single bench judgment of Allahabad High Court in Sudhir Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. 5. Shri Vigyan Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his case has cited the Division Bench judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court at Shimla in Arun Gautam and ors. Vs. H.P. Technical Education Board and ors. and another single bench judgment of Allahabad High Court in Sudhir Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. 5. Shri Tanveer Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for petitioner in SBCWP No.7706/2013 has argued that theory of relation back has been held applicable even in the case of result of re-evaluation as it is owning to change of marks in the reevaluation, which is not a fault on the part of the student. Learned counsel further argued that petitioner-Deepak Singh stands at Merit No.165 and call letter was issued to him for document verification. His candidature has been rejected only because the respondents have taken a hyper technical view of the matter on account of declaration of the result of reevaluation later than 28/8/2011 on 30/10/2012. There are still vacancies with the respondents. Shri Tanveer Ahmed has adopted the arguments made by Shri Vigyan Shah, learned counsel for petitioner-Jitendra Kumar Shrotriya in contending that petitioner in his case also, was deprived of appointment only because of belated declaration of the result of re-evaluation of the petitioner on 30/10/2012. 6. Shri Anurag Kalawatia and Shri Lokendra Singh Shekhawat, learned counsel appearing for the respondents have opposed the writ petitions and argued that they have nothing to do about the delay because the declaration of the result by the University, is essentially a matter between the petitioners-students and the University. Learned counsel argued that in any case, petitioners cannot claim to have cleared the examination on their merit as petitioner-Jitendra Kumar Shrotriya was awarded 2 grace marks and petitioner-Deepak Singh was awarded 1 grace mark. Condition of the advertisement was that a candidate has to essentially secure the eligibility qualification as on the date of written examination on 28/8/2011. This condition was uniformally applied to all the candidates and therefore no relaxation can be granted therein. The letters were issued to the petitioners only on the condition that they would produce their result on or before the date of written examination and it was for that purpose, they were called for verification of the documents. If the petitioners have failed to acquire the qualification on that date, they cannot be treated as eligible. The letters were issued to the petitioners only on the condition that they would produce their result on or before the date of written examination and it was for that purpose, they were called for verification of the documents. If the petitioners have failed to acquire the qualification on that date, they cannot be treated as eligible. Action of the respondents cannot be therefore faulted. Learned counsel for the respondent in support of his arguments has placed reliance on judgment of the Supreme Court in U.P. Public Service Commission U.P., Allahabad and Anr. Vs. Alpana : (1994) 2 SCC 723 . 7. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material available on record, I find that both the petitioners were eventually declared pass, albeit by grant of grace marks but that would not make any difference in so far as eligibility qualification is concerned as a candidate passed even with grace marks has also to be taken eligible. The petitioners would therefore nevertheless be treated to have qualified that particular examination. Petitioners have thus acquired eligibility but question is when did become eligible. The only dispute is that result of their examination was declared much after 28/8/2011, the date fixed for written examination as per the requirement given in Note (2) given below clause-2 of the advertisement issued by the respondents. Division Bench judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court in Arun Gautam supra dealt with a somewhat identical question, though in the context of facts where petitioners were students of Government Polytechnic institute and were studying Diploma in Civil Engineering and Electrical Engineering. Originally, they were shown to have failed and thereafter they were asked to re-appear in the same examination. They applied for reevaluation and after result of re-evaluation, they came out successful. All the petitioners completed 2nd semester in consequence of their success in the re-evaluation, yet they were not permitted by the H.P. Technical Education Board on the ground that they did not complete the 2nd semester fully. Pre-condition for admission in 5th semester was complete pass in all the subjects of the 2nd semester. It was held by the Himachal Pradesh High Court that when all the petitioners succeeded in re-evaluation, they should be considered eligible as in their case the mark-sheet issued to them would relate back to June 1997 when results of the entire examination were published. It was held by the Himachal Pradesh High Court that when all the petitioners succeeded in re-evaluation, they should be considered eligible as in their case the mark-sheet issued to them would relate back to June 1997 when results of the entire examination were published. This view was taken by the Himachal Pradesh High Court on the analogy that re-evaluation cannot be construed as re-appearance in respect of the same subject and result thereof declared in November 1997 must relate back to June 1997 when the results of the entire examination were published. In that case, the dispute was between the petitioner and the Technical Examination Board for the purpose of admission to 5th semester. 8. In Sudhir Kumar supra, the Allahabad High Court dealt with a matter, where petitioner applied for Special B.T.C. Course, 2008 showing his marks in B.Ed. Examination as 323 out of 600 in theory and 378 out of 400 in practical. Last date for submission of the application form was 20/2/2009. Lateron, petitioner appeared in some back paper, result of which was declared on 2/9/2009 and his marks in theory were increased from 323 to 339 out of 600. He wanted his merit to be re evaluated on the basis of revised marks contending that he secured higher marks and therefore the marks now secured by him be treated to relate back to the initial examination. In those facts, it was held by the Allahabad High Court in para 8 of the said judgment, as under:- “8. In my view, in such a case the mark-sheet issued to the candidate would stand corrected from the date it was originally issued and even if last date for submission of an application form or a document has expired and such an eventuality takes place on a later date, the candidate can be given the benefit of such increased marks and the authority would be entitled to consider the revised mark-sheet. In fact it is a case of reappraisal of marks itself and the original mark-sheet issued to the candidate becomes non est from its inception and stands substituted by the revised mark-sheet. Whether the candidate apply for scrutiny or revaluation before the last date of submission of the application form or subsequent thereto would be wholly irrelevant so long as he had validly applied for the same and such request has been accepted by the Examining Body”. Whether the candidate apply for scrutiny or revaluation before the last date of submission of the application form or subsequent thereto would be wholly irrelevant so long as he had validly applied for the same and such request has been accepted by the Examining Body”. 9. The Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar and others. etc. Vs. State of Bihar and ors. etc. was dealing with a case, where evaluation of answer scripts of candidates appearing in a competitive examination on the ground of inaccuracies/defects in the answer-key was assailed by the unsuccessful candidates. While allowing the appeals, the Supreme Court held that in case the writ petitioners-respondents figure in the merit list after re-evaluation of the answer scripts, their appointments shall relate back to the date when the appellants were first appointed with continuity of service to them for purpose of seniority but without any back wages or other incidental benefits. That analogy perhaps may not be applicable to the cases like the present one because challenge in the aforesaid case was made to the model answer key on success of which, merit was changed and consequently, the fresh merit was directed to be prepared. 10. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Alpana supra, which is relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents arose out of a case, wherein the respondent could not qualify the eligibility criteria on the last date of inviting applications though she appeared in interview under the directions of the High Court. The last date for submission of the application form was 20/08/1988. Result of her qualifying examination was published on 28/8/1982. In those facts, it was held by the Supreme Court that the last date for submission of the application form was form 20/8/1982 by which date, she did not acquire the eligibility qualification. The issue in that case essentially was as to on which date eligibility should be considered. The Supreme Court while reversing judgment of the High Court in para 6 of the report held, as under:- “6. In the facts of the present case we fail to appreciate how the ratio of the said decision of this Court can be attracted. The facts of this case reveal that the respondent was not qualified to apply since the last date fixed for receipt of applications was August 20, 1988. In the facts of the present case we fail to appreciate how the ratio of the said decision of this Court can be attracted. The facts of this case reveal that the respondent was not qualified to apply since the last date fixed for receipt of applications was August 20, 1988. No rule or practice is shown to have existed which permitted entertainment of her application. The Public Service Commission was, therefore, right in refusing to call her for interview. The High Court in Writ Petition No. 1898 of 1991 mandated the Public Service Commission to interview her but directed to withhold the result until further orders. In obedience to the directive of the High Court the Public Service Commission interviewed her but her result was kept in abeyance. Thereafter, the High Court while disposing of the matter finally directed the Public Service Commission to declare her result and, if successful, to forward her name for appointment. The High Court even went to the length of ordering the creation of a supernumerary post to accommodate her. This approach of the High Court cannot be supported on any rule or prevalent practice nor can it be supported on equitable considerations. In fact there was no occasion for the High Court to interfere with the refusal of the Public Service Commission to interview her in the absence of any specific rule in that behalf. We find it difficult to give recognition to such an approach of the High Court as that would open up a flood of litigation. Many candidates superior to the respondent in merit may not have applied as the result of the examination was not declared before the last date for receipt of applications. If once such an approach is recognised there would be several applications received from such candidates not eligible to apply and that would not only increase avoidable work of the selecting authorities but would also increase the pressure on such authorities to withhold interviews till the results are declared, thereby causing avoidable administrative difficulties. This would also leave vacancies unfilled for long spells of time. We, therefore, find it difficult to uphold the view of the High Court impugned in this appeal.” 11. Question as to applicability of relation back theory in an identical case directly fell for consideration of the Supreme Court in Jenany J.R. Vs. S.Rajeevan and others: (2010) 5 SCC 798 . We, therefore, find it difficult to uphold the view of the High Court impugned in this appeal.” 11. Question as to applicability of relation back theory in an identical case directly fell for consideration of the Supreme Court in Jenany J.R. Vs. S.Rajeevan and others: (2010) 5 SCC 798 . In that case, the crucial date by which the candidates should possess requisite qualification was the date of occurrence of the vacancy. The vacancy of High School Assistant (Hindi) arose on 1/7/2003. Appellant Jenany J.R. possessed the requisite qualification on that day and was therefore selected for appointment in response to the advertisement issued on 10/8/2003. Her appointment order was issued on 11/9/2003 and she joined the post on 23/10/2003. Respondent S.Rajeevan did not pass the qualifying examination and therefore he was not possessing the requisite qualification on that day. He applied for re-evaluation and after declaration of the result thereof, he was declared pass on 23/9/2003. He then challenged the appointment of appellant Jenany J.R. by filing writ petition before the Kerala High Court. The High Court dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved thereby, he filed writ appeal before Division Bench of the same High Court. Division Bench allowed the writ appeal treating him to have acquired qualification for appointment on the post and directed that appointment be granted to him. In those facts, petition for grant of leave was filed before the Supreme Court by Jenany J.R. The Supreme Court in paras 12 and 13 of the said judgment held, as under:- “12. As has been mentioned hereinabove, the only question which is required to be considered by us in this appeal is whether on the date the vacancy had occurred i.e. on 1-7-2003, Respondent 1 was having the requisite qualification or not to be appointed on the post of has (Hindi). 13. It is not disputed that Respondent 1 was not qualified to be promoted as has on the date when the vacancy arose. It was conceded before the learned Single Judge that in July 2003, when the results of the examination were published, he had failed. However, he had applied for re-evaluation. 13. It is not disputed that Respondent 1 was not qualified to be promoted as has on the date when the vacancy arose. It was conceded before the learned Single Judge that in July 2003, when the results of the examination were published, he had failed. However, he had applied for re-evaluation. Only after re-evaluation was done, he was declared pass in September 2003 as per the communication sent to him by the Secretary, Board of Public Examinations, Thus, there was no dispute that on 1-7-2003, when the vacancy arose, admittedly, Respondent 1 was not duly qualified to be appointed as has (Hindi) is contemplated under Note (2) appended to Rule 43 of the Rules. This aspect of the matter has been dealt with by the learned Single Judge in detail in para 5 of the judgment.” 12. Though in that case, the phraseology of relation back theory was not stated in so many words, nevertheless the Supreme Court held that qualification has to be acquired with reference to the crucial date and the dispute was as to the crucial date for deciding eligibility on the basis of requisite qualification possessed by the candidate. The Supreme Court in the context of Note(2) given below Rule 43 of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 held that relevant rule prescribing that a candidate, in order to be eligible, should possess requisite qualification “at the time of occurrence of vacancy”, which in that case was 1/7/2003. The writ petitioner had by then not passed the test and therefore was held not to possess the requisite eligibility qualification. He had applied for reevaluation, result of which was declared on 23/9/2003 i.e. much after the crucial date i.e. 1/7/2003 and therefore his claim was rejected. 13. In UCO Bank Vs. Madhav Anant Koparkar : 1999 SCC (L&S) 1174 also, the Supreme Court rejected claim of those, who acquired the changed qualification after the cut off date for computing eligibility for promotion. The Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. Chander Shekhar : (1997) 4 SCC 18 was dealing with a case, where argument advanced by the appellant that any cut-off date having not been specified in the advertisement and that the appellant not being confirmed on the post of Lecturer, the appointment granted to the petitioner, even if she acquired the qualification after the last date fixed for submission of application, should be upheld. It was held by the Supreme Court that possession of the requisite qualification is mandatory. The same should not be uncertain. If an uncertainty is allowed to prevail, the employer would be flooded with applications of ineligible candidates. A cut-off date for the purpose of determining the eligibility of the candidates concerned must, therefore, be fixed. In the absence of any rule or any specific date having been fixed in the advertisement, the law would be the last date of for filing the application. It was further held therein that since the appellant did not hold the requisite qualification as on the said cut-off date, he was, therefore, held not eligible for the post in question. 14. Upshot of the above discussion is that both the writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed.