They contend that the petitioners had completed their ITC course and were selected as Assistant Linemen whereas the respondent Nos.5 to 21 had completed their ITI course and also were sappointed as Assistant Linemen. The ITC course is conducted by the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL) whereas ITI course is conducted by Colleges and Institutions. Since the eligibility criteria prescribed in the recruitment notification was either ITI or ITC qualification, the petitioners and respondent Nos.5 to 21 who possessed the said qualification and who were selected as Assistant Linemen had to be placed based on the order of merit. They contend that at the relevant point of time, when the seniority list was prepared by the appointing authority in the order of merit, inadvertently, the list was prepared classifying the appointees based on their ITC and ITI qualification. Later on, realizing the mistake, the seniority list was rectified and promotions were granted to respondent Nos.5 to 21. Hence, it is contended that respondent Nos.1 to 3 were justified in publishing the seniority list. It is contended that the objections of the petitioners were considered and endorsements vide Annexures ‘R2’ to ‘R5’ were issued rejecting their objections.
