Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Vishnu Lal Sen vs R S R T C And Ors on 27 September, 2016
Author: Ajay Rastogi
Bench: Ajay Rastogi
SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES
AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
------------------------------------------------------
SAW-1396/2012 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER
APPENDED SCHEDULE-A
1. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.1396/2012
APPELLANT :-
VISHNU LAL SEN S/O SH. PREM CHAND SEN, AGED 22 YEARS,
R/O VILLAGE NAYA TEELA, POST BORKHANDI KALAN, TEHSIL
PEEPLU, DIST.TONK (HAVING ROLL NO.58430).
V E R S U S
RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH
ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG,
JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD,
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN
MARG, JAIPUR.
3. ABHIMANYU SINGH YADAV, HAVING ROLL NO.47487,
THROUGH MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD,
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN
MARG, JAIPUR.
4. SURENDRA KUMAR DADARWAAL, HAVING ROLL NO.70091
THROUGH MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD,
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN
MARG, JAIPUR.
Judgment Reserved :: Dt.15/09/2016
Judgment Pronounced :: Dt.27/09/2016
P R E S E N T
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI
Counsel for Appellants:-
Mr. Mahendra Shah, Mr. Vigyan Shah, Mr. Arvind Kumar
Arora, Mr. Ashutosh Sharma,Mr. C.P. Sharma, Mr. Dharmendra
Jain, Mr. G.L. Sharma, Mr. M. Iqbal Khan, Mr. Manoj Kumar
Sharma, Mr. Naveen Dhuwan, Mr. Poonam Chand Bhandari, Mr.
Poonam Chand Sharma, Mr. R.B. Sharma Ganthola, Mr. R.D.
Meena, Mr. R.P. Saini, Mr. Raghunandan Sharma,
Mr. Rajendra Soni, Mr. Rajkumar Goyal, Mr. S.N. Meena,
SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES
AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A
(2)
Mr. Samay Singh.
Counsel for Respondents:-
Mr. R.N. Mathur, Senior Counsel with Mr. Ashok Kumar
Bansal, Mr. Mahipal Kharra, Mr. R.M. Bairwa, Mr.
Rajeev Surana, Mr. Vinayak Joshi, Mr. Anuroop Singhi,
Mr. Tarun Kumar Verma, Mr. Alok Chaturvedi, Mr. Lokesh
Tailor, Mr. Shailendra Sharma.
J U D G M E N T
By the Court (Per Hon'ble Ajay Rastogi,J.) :-
Instant batch of intra-court appeals have been
preferred against the self same judgment passed by the
learned Single Judge disposing of bunch of petitions
impugned dt.30.7.2012.
At the outset, we firstly would like to record
that the present batch of appellants has confined
their grievance only in respect to the selection
process held for the post of Conductor in reference to
the advertisements No.219/2009-10 & 152/2010-11.
As there had been several rounds of litigation at
the instance of different categories/class of
candidates earlier to the appellant-writ petitioners
assailing either the validity of condition of
holding/possessing HMV Driving Licence for the post of
Conductor; migration from reserved category to general
category; prejudice caused on account of change in cut
off marks of reserved category/general category,
rejection of candidature on the ground of partial
colour blindness, non-consideration of candidates
despite being similarly situated but those who failed
to approach the Court on or before 09.11.2011
sacrosanct & other manifold grounds with the
assistance of the counsel for the parties we have gone
through the pleadings on record & also the submissions
SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES
AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A
(3)
made before us & a scrutiny thereof reveals the
questions which emerges for our consideration to be
summarized as under :-
(i) Whether the right of fair consideration of the
candidates participated in the selection process held
pursuant to advertisement no.219/2009-10 & 152/2010-11
can be evaluated on two different standards/yardsticks
by the Corporation in the mode of selection held for
the post of Conductor ?
(ii) Whether consent/agreement of the Corporation
tendered & recorded by the learned Single Judge in the
earlier batch of petitions preferred & known as S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.13855/2011 (Prem Prakash Sharma
Vs. RSRTC & Anr.) decided on 09.11.2011 could remain
confined to the writ petitioners who approached upto
9-11-2011 ?
(iii) Whether the delay as alleged by the learned
Single Judge can be held fatal depriving right of fair
consideration of the candidates who had participated
in the self same selection process along with those
who are saved ?
To consider the respective grievance of the
different category of candidates, we thus consider it
appropriate to take note & narrate the seretum of
facts provided to us as under :-
The respondent Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation ("the Corporation") issued an
advertisement holding selection for the post of
Driver, Conductor, Artisan Grade-II, & Artisan Grade-
III through open selection vide its notification
no.219/2009-10 notifying 472 posts of Conductor
followed with another advertisement no.152/2010-11
notifying 471 posts of Conductor, a joint selection
SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES
AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A
(4)
process was initiated and a written test for the post
of Conductor was held on 09.01.2011 & result was
declared on 19.01.2011, pursuant to which the cut off
marks with respect to each category of the candidates
as notified by the Corporation is indicated as
under :-
Category Marks
General 65
OBC 77
SC 59
ST 69
SBC 73
Indisputably the cut off marks was based on five
times the number of candidates category wise to be
called for participating in the process of selection
including trade test.
The first batch of writ petitions was preferred &
known as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2183/2011 (Narpat
Dan Vs. RSRTC & Ors.) & the grievance was that the
candidates of reserved category could not be selected
in their own category because of higher cut off marks
than general/open category and it was prayed that at
least they deserve to be shifted/migrated to the
general category of having secured higher marks than
the last selected candidate in the general/open
category.
The Single Bench of this Court at the Principal
Seat, Jodhpur while disposing of bunch of petitions
vide judgment dt.31.05.2011 directed the Corporation
to declare revised result by migrating candidates of
reserved category to general/open category, who at
least have obtained marks of last selected candidate
in general category. Pursuant thereto, the candidates
of their respective category having secured 65 marks,
SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES
AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A
(5)
irrespective of their category became eligible for
further participation in the selection process
including the trade test.
It may be noticed that the cut off marks of the
written test declared on 19.01.2011 could not be final
since it was the list of the candidates declared five
times the number of candidates category wise to be
called for trade test which is integrated part of the
process of selection and calling all the candidates
who secured upto 65 marks in their respective category
certainly has enlarged the number of candidates who
were permitted to participate in the selection
process. It may be relevant to note that the condition
of eligibility relevant for the purpose which the
Corporation inserted in both the two advertisements
(supra), reads as under :-
"पर चलकपदप भर हरपतर :-
1. मन र पपरमध ममकम क बरससकर! प!क उतर$र|
2. पर चलकक लइस'सएवबजआवश कहग|
3. भ ! वहनचलनक लइस'सअननव |"
A plain reading of the aforesaid condition reveals
that the candidate intending to participate for the
post of Conductor in terms of the advertisement to be
subjected to Trade Test (Driving & Simulator) was
supposed to hold/possess HMV Driving Licence and the
condition of holding HMV Driving Licence so imposed
came to be assailed obviously by the candidates not
holding/possessing HMV Driving Licence.
In the second round of litigation, preferred &
known as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14710/2010
(Nirmal Kumar jain & Ors. Vs. RSRTC & Ors.) along with
bunch of petitions. The condition (supra) was
considered by the Corporation to be one of the
SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES
AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A
(6)
essential condition of eligibility for participation
in the selection process & in fact came to be
introduced pursuant to Board's resolution
dt.23.04.2010 without amending the schedule appended
to the Regulations laying down qualification for the
post of Conductor.
However, taking note of the material on record &
in particular the scheme of Road Transport Corporation
Act,1950 ("Act,1950") the learned Single Judge of this
Court arrived to the conclusion that though the
Corporation is competent to frame regulations but that
can only be made with previous sanction of the State
Government & to be notified in the official gazette as
envisaged u/Sec.45 of the Act,1950. Indisputably the
so called alleged amendment in the regulations has not
been notified in the official gazette & that being so
it could not be considered as part of Regulations &
still indicated in the advertisement pursuant to which
the selection process was initiated and thus the
learned Single Judge held that the Corporation will
not give effect to the Board's resolution
dt.23.04.2010 but on the agreement/ concensus arrived
at between the parties still confined relief to the
writ petitioners who approached the court & appeared
in written examination either under interim order of
the Court or at the instance of the Corporation and
the candidates who are not holding HMV driving
licence, considered eligible to appear in the trade
test provided they have secured cut off/qualifying
marks in the written test.
Thus pursuant to the first round of litigation in
Narpat Dan's case dt.31.05.2011 the Corporation called
all candidates of the reserved category for trade test
SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES
AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A
(7)
who have obtained upto 65 marks in the written
examination and pursuant to the later judgment in
Nirmal Kumar Jain's case dt.02.09.2011 it remain
confined to writ petitioners who were permitted under
interim order of the Court to participate in the trade
test for the post of Conductor who were not holding
the HMV driving licence.
However, just 3 days prior from the date final
result being declared dt.23.09.2011, the Corporation
on 19.09.2011 declared revised cut off list of written
examination by migrating candidates of the reserved
category to general & changed the cut off from 65 to
75. The revised cut off dt.19.09.2011 published by the
Corporation of various categories, being relevant,
reads as follows :
Category Marks
General 75
SC 58
ST 67
OBC 71
SBC 69
Taking note of the revised result of written test
plus trade test (Nirmal Kumar Jain's judgment
dt.02.09.2011) final cut off list came to be published
on 23.09.2011 & the same is ad infra :-
General 108
SC 88
ST 97
OBC 101
SBC 104
At this stage, again a third round of
litigation came up before the Court in the bunch of
petitions preferred & known as S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.13855/2011 (Prem Prakash Sharma Vs. RSRTC
SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES
AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A
(8)
& Ors.) assailing the impugned final result
dt.23.09.2011 on manifold grounds amongst others,
wherein the general category candidates challenged the
revised cut off marks of written examination
dt.19.09.2011 & final select list dt.23.09.2011 on the
ground that migration cannot take place at every stage
of selection & more so Narpat Dan's case was based on
distorted facts and the cut off list dt.19.01.2011 was
not the final cut off and further prayed that category
wise list of the candidates eligible to participate in
the trade test taking weightage of 50 marks and
assailed their non selection in failing to secure
minimum qualifying marks in the trade test on the
pretext that no such condition of minimum qualifying
marks either in the advertisement or during the
process of selection was notified, as such the rule of
game cannot be changed in the midst of the selection
process, at the same time there was another batch of
candidates questioning validity of condition of
holding/possessing HMV Driving Licence (Simulator &
Driving) on the premise at once the writ petitions
came to be decided by the learned Single Judge of this
Court holding that the condition so imposed of
possessing HMV Driving Licence could not have been
enforced as has been decided in Nirmal Kumar Jain's
case they could not be asked to undergo Simulator and
driving test for the post of Conductor.
Yet there was another batch of candidates who
assailed rejection of their candidature on account of
Partial Colour Blindness for the post of Conductor on
the premise that such deformatory is neither required
for the post of Conductor nor there is a bar to
perform/discharge the work of Conductor & on the
SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES
AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A
(9)
contrary a protection has been provided under the
Disabilities Act,1995.
The learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.13855/2011 (Prem Prakash Sharma Vs. RSRTC
& Ors.) by an interim order dt.27.09.2011 at one stage
stayed all the appointments on the post of Conductor &
the final list published on 23.09.2011 was put in
abeyance & put to a complete hault. It may be noticed
that the controversy raised by the candidates in the
batch of writ petitions in Prem Prakash Case was not
examined by the learned Single Judge on merits.
However, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the
Corporation appeared in person before the Court &
arrived to certain censensus and in light thereof the
batch of petitions came to be decided on agreed terms
as has been noticed by the learned Single Judge in its
order dt.09.11.2011 and that being relevant for the
present purpose, is reproduced ad infra :-
"Looking to the fact that the respondent
Corporation has agreed to redress the
grievance as indicated in their arguments
and the petitioners are also in agreement
to the aforesaid, these writ petitions so
as the stay applications are disposed of on
the following agreed terms between the
parties.
1. Those petitioners who have appeared for
the post of Conductor and were asked to
undertake driving to assess their
performance for 30 marks out of 50 marks
would be benefited by redetermination of
marks of trade test on the percentage of
marks as obtained in the written
examination of 20 marks in trade test.
Whatever percentage of marks they have
obtained out of 20 marks would be taken
into consideration on remaining 30 marks
and providing same percentage of marks on
SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES
AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A
(10)
30 marks, determination of marks on total
50 marks would be made. For illustration,
if a candidate has obtained 15 marks out of
20, his marks in the trade test would be
considered as 37.5 out of 50 marks. Same
way, if one has obtained 10 marks out of
20, then his marks would be taken as 25 out
of 50 marks. Aforesaid formula would be
applicable to the petitioners as well as
those appeared in the trade test pursuant
to the order of the court in the earlier
litigation where challenge was to
conditions to possess driving licence for
the post of Conductor. The merit position
for such petitioners would be redetermined
based on the aforesaid and if they find
place in the merit, the Corporation will
give appointment to the meritorious
candidates. This direction would be
applicable to those petitioners who had
contested the matter by challenging
requirement of driving licence and remain
successful in the petitions.
2. The respondent Corporation will not
insist upon minimum pass marks in the trade
test, accordingly, one would not be denied
benefit of appointment merely for the
reason that he/she has failed to secure
minimum pass marks in the trade test. The
appointment would, however, be purely on
the basis of merit and if one has failed to
secure merit marks, he/she would not be
entitled for appointment.
3. So far as discrepancies shown in the
first list on website and amended list is
concerned, petitioners, who are aggrieved
by the aforesaid, would be at liberty to
make a representation to the respondent
Corporation to allow inspection of copies
to see their actual marks as written
examination as well as the written test as
a part of trade test. After inspection of
copies, if any discrepancy is found in the
marks shown in the final list, the
SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES
AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A
(11)
Corporation will rectify the mistake by
indicating the same marks as is obtained by
the candidate in the written examination as
well as written test as a part of trade
test.
4. So far as petitioners who were allowed
for the trade test pursuant to the cut off
marks indicated by the Corporation at the
first instance would not be deprived to get
appointment subject to their merit position
only on the ground that they failed to get
required cut off marks subsequently
declared i. e. after the judgment in the
case of Narpat Dan (supra).
5. Those petitioners who are aggrieved by
the result of the medical test would be at
liberty to make a representation to the
respondent Corporation for their re-
examination. In case of submission of
representation, Corporation will get the
candidate re-examined by the medical board
to be constituted by the Superintendent,
SMS Medical College & Hospital, Jaipur.
Aforesaid directions would be applicable to
those petitioners who are aggrieved by the
medical examination and would also be
applicable to the medical certificate in
regard to their colour blindness. If any of
the candidates is found medical fit and
obtains required merit position then he
would be given appointment.
6. So far as issue of qualification of 4
candidates to the post of Artisan Gr III is
concerned, their cases are sub judice
before this court thus final outcome of
those writ petitions will decide fate of
such candidates.
7. The Corporation would extend benefit of
1% reservation to those candidates falling
in SBC category subject to their merit
position.
8. Petitioners, who have appeared for the
post of Conductor have agreed to abide by
the directions issued by this court in the
SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES
AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A
(12)
case of Nirmal Kumar Jain (supra) and,
accordingly, would possess driving licence
within the period given therein.
9. The directions aforesaid would not be
applicable to those petitioners who had
earlier preferred writ petitions before the
Principal Seat, Jodhpur on the same issue
and their writ petitions were dismissed
thereafter.
10. The issue as to whether reserve caste
category candidates taken benefit of
relaxation or concession in the selection
would be entitled to shift to general
category is kept open as presently
aforesaid has not been pressed by the
petitioners. Same way, the issue regarding
determination of merit after considering
academic qualification is also kept open
for adjudication in future, if so raised.
The respondent Corporation is now
expected to undertake and complete the
exercise, as indicated above, within
shortest possible time."
The learned Single Judge with the consent of the
parties disposed of the matter vide judgment
dt.09.11.2011 and the Corporation instead of revising
the result published the select list in terms of the
judgment dt.9-11-2011 of the Ld. Single Judge, on the
very next day issued appointment orders of the
candidates vide its order dt.10.11.2011, 6-1-2012, 31-
1-2012, 23-2-2012 respectively. It may be noticed that
apart from others, candidature of some of the
candidates was rejected on the premise of Partial
Colour Blindness like one Ajay Pal examined by SMS
Medical Board opined him to be unfit for the post of
Driver but it may not come in way of seeking
appointment on the post of Conductor as there was no
opinion of the Board regarding their unfitness on
SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES
AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A
(13)
account of partial blindness for the post of
Conductor.
The third batch of petitions known as Prem
Prakash's case came to be preferred indisputably after
final result was declared by the Corporation on
23.09.2011 and the batch of petitions was disposed of
on the agreement of the parties by the learned Single
Judge without examining on merits vide judgment
dt.09.11.2011 and that remain restricted to the
candidates alone who challenged the requirement
/condition of holding/possession HMV Driving Licence
and remained unsuccessful having failed to secure
minimum passing marks in the trade test and approached
the Court prior to the judgment dt.9-11-2011.
The present fourth round of litigation came up
before the learned Single Judge known as S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No.377/2012 (Sharavan Kumar Vs. RSRTC &
Ors.) on the pretext that lessor meritorious
candidates were given appointment by the Corporation
and such of the candidates who secured total 109 marks
against the cut off in OBC of 102 still have not been
considered for appointment.
The learned Single Judge taking note of judgment
dt.09.11.2011 held that their apprehension is ill
founded that they would not be given appointment on
the ground of having not secured minimum 30 marks out
of 50 in trade test though they have secured higher
marks than the last selected candidate is mere
illusory than real and hence were directed to submit
representation to the Corporation in the light of
earlier judgment dt.09.11.2011, at the same time the
Corporation was directed to decide in accordance with
law within the stipulated time. In the meantime the
SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES
AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A
(14)
Corporation issued further appointment orders of the
candidates on 06.01.2012, 31.01.2012 & 23.02.2012
respectively in compliance of judgment dt.09.11.2011
but that remained confined to such of the candidates
who approached the Court upto 09.11.2011 & they alone
were considered for appointment.
The Corporation thereafter vide its order
dt.18.7.2012 rejected such representations of the
candidates like Shravan Kumar on the premise of having
not approached the Court by 09.11.2011 and the
selection process being over, hence cannot be
considered for appointment and that brought another
round of litigation to the candidates who could not
approach the Court on or before 09.11.2011 and in the
seretum of facts, it was the batch of petitions came
to be preferred at Jaipur Bench known as S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No.3600/2012 (Ramesh Chand Vs. RSRTC &
Ors.) obviously by the candidates who were left out
from being considered for appointment on the ground
that they could not approach the Court upto 09.11.2011
and it was prayed that 09.11.2011 fixed by the learned
Single Judge cannot be that sacrosant & to decide the
fate of the candidates who had participated in the
common selection process is neither reasonable nor
justified & that apart two different standards/
yardsticks could not have been adopted by the
Corporation in one & common process of selection held
for the post of Conductor, at the same time, Review
Petition No.57/2012 in Civil Writ Petition
No.13855/2011 (Prem Prakash's case supra) was
preferred and that came to be dismissed along with
batch of writ petitions by the learned Single Judge
vide judgment impugned dt.30.07.2012.
SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES
AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A
(15)
It reveals that almost all the contentions
advanced by the writ petitioners in the batch of
petitions are repelled primarily on the premise that
relief stands confined as agreed by the Corporation to
such of the writ petitioners who approached the Court
on or before 09.11.2011 & the candidates who
approached thereafter may be similarly situated will
not be entitled to claim benefit of aforesaid consent
of the Corporation recorded by the learned Single
Judge in the earlier batch of petitions decided on
09.11.2011.
In compliance of the impugned judgment dt.30-7-
2012, the respondent Corporation terminated services
of the candidates either on the ground that he has not
secured minimum marks in the written examination as
per the revised cut off marks of the written
examination published in terms of judgment dt.9-11-
2011 or on account of re-determination of the marks of
the trade test for the reason that the condition of
holding HMV Driving Licence was not challenged and in
other words approached the Court after 9-11-2011, at
the same time services of one Hanuman Singh came to be
terminated vide order dt.27-5-2013 appears to be on
the ground that he was wrongly granted the benefit of
re-determination of the marks in the trade test though
he was possessing HMV Driving Licence at the time of
submission of his application form for the post of
Conductor and the writ petition preferred by Hanuman
Singh bearing no.9185/2013 was dismissed by the
learned Single Judge vide order dt.31-5-2013 and that
was assailed in DB special appeal and it was dismissed
by the Division Bench vide order dt.24-9-2013 and that
was the subject matter of challenge at his instance
SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES
AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A
(16)
before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4302 of 2016
which was allowed vide order dt.21-4-2016 & while
setting aside the order of termination it was further
observed that the distinction which has been drawn by
the Ld. Single Judge restricting to the candidates who
approached the Court on or before 9-11-2011 & confirmed
by the Division Bench does not apply to any valid
reasoning much less a sound one and the finding recorded
in dealing with the issue no.2 & 5 was set aside.
At the same time information was obtained by one
Ashok Kumar under RTI Act from the office of Corporation
regarding availability of the vacancies for the post of
Conductor and it was made available to him on 8-6-2016
and we consider it appropriate to quote the information
supplied under RTI Act from the office of Corporation
vide communication dt.8-6-2016 which is as under :-
"ववष -स3चन क अध5क अध5नन म 2005 क अनरगर स3चन उपलब5 क न
बबर।
पसग- आपकपतददनक 06.05.2016
उप करपसधगकववष रगरलखह ककस3चन क अध5क अध5नन म2005
कअनरगरआप दव पवषरपरन पत ददनक06.05.2016 ससमबनन5रस3चन
पपरसच3 ननस ननमनपक पवषरह :-
वष मह र करपदद कक सख
चलक पर चलक
वष 2010-11 मच 2011 कक 1168 1261
नCरनर
वष 2011-12 मच- 2012 1500 943
वष 2012-13 मच-2013 1220 1335
वष 2013-14 मच-2014 1054 88
वष2014-15 मच - 2015 1110 886
वष2015-16 मच -2016 1256 1446
On the basis of the information made available by
the Corporation under RTI Act dt.8-6-2016 we directed
the Corporation to file counter affidavit justifying
the details of the available vacancies, in compliance
thereof additional affidavit has been filed by the
SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES
AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A
(17)
respondent Corporation and it has been stated in para-3
that at the time of advertisement in question dt.3-3-
2010, there were 472 posts of Conductor and by further
advertisement dt.22-9-2010, 471 posts were advertised
and the selection process was held for 943 posts &
according to the respondents, all have been filled. It
is further stated that after the permission was granted
by the State Government, selection process was
initiated pursuant to advertisement no.1372 dt.6-8-2013
to fill 1335 vacancies but in fact 2005 posts of
Conductor have been filled and during the financial
year 2013-14, 88 posts were carry forwarded and in the
same financial year 798 posts of Conductor became
vacant on account of retirement/termination/
resignation & in total 886 posts were carry forwarded
in the financial year 2014-15 and during this financial
year 560 posts also remained vacant and in all 1446
posts of Conductor are carry forwarded to the financial
year 2015-16 but the selection process could not be
initiated for filling such posts of the financial year
2015-16 in absence of permission being granted by the
State Government.
Counsel for appellants jointly submits that since
it was one & the common advertisement pursuant to
which the candidates appeared & participated in the
selection process held for the post of Conductor, it
was expected from the Corporation to lay down certain
guidelines to be followed in rem by adopting a common
standard in evaluating merit/candidature of the
individual candidate who could be finally found to be
suitable for appointment and adopting two different
standards/yardsticks in evaluating candidature of the
candidates in a common process on the premise that one
SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES
AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A
(18)
could not approach the Court on or before 09.11.2011
appears to be an artificial distinction and
segregation of the process in two parts; one who
approached the Court on or before 09.11.2011 & the
rest who approached the Court thereafter, having no
sound reasoning to support is legally impermissible in
law.
Counsel jointly further submits that one of the
candidate Hanuman Singh, on being terminated by the
respondent in consequence to the impugned judgment
dt.30-7-2012 went upto the Apex Court and the Apex
Court while setting aside the order of his termination
further observed that distinction made by the Ld.
Single Judge does not apply to any valid reasoning and
taking note thereof the present appellants also
deserves same indulgence and are entitled to be
considered for appointment in tune with the principles
laid down by the learned Single Judge in its judgment
dt.9-11-2011 to be made applicable in rem to the
candidates who had participated in the selection
process held for the post of Conductor, denial thereof
certainly be in violation of Art.14 of the
Constitution.
Counsel for respondent Corporation, on the other
hand, submits that since it was a long & time
consuming litigation going ahead and one after other
batch of petitions being filed, the Corporation
intended to finalise the selection process as such it
was decided that to sum up the pending litigation and
being in the interest of the institution (Corporation)
the MD of the Corporation agreed to the contentions
advanced by the writ petitioners & tendered his
consent but that could be confined only to the writ
SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES
AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A
(19)
petitioners alone and since the present appellants
filed their respective writ petitions at a later stage
after 9-11-2011, such consent of the MD-cum-Chairman
of the Corporation remain confined to the writ
petitioners in persona & under these circumstances at
least the learned Single Judge has not committed any
error in rejecting batch of the petitions which
indisputably came to be preferred after 09.11.2011 and
since appointments have now been made, those who were
appointed are not party to the litigation certainly be
adversely affected and further submits that impleading
few of them as respondents, in the light of the
provisions u/Ord.1 R.8 CPC cannot be considered to be
in the representative capacity of non-impleaded
candidates and submits that the present appellants are
not entitled to any relief & their batch of appeals
deserves to be dismissed.
Counsel further submits that all the advertised
vacancies have already been filled and even if the
contention advanced by the appellants finds favour by
this Court, they are not entitled to any relief unless
the candidates who are going to be affected are
impleaded as party respondents and those who have
already been appointed being necessary party, without
affording any opportunity of hearing to them, this
Court may not like to pass any order behind their back
and in support of submission placed reliance on the
judgment in Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia Vs.
Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar and another,
AIR 1963 SC 786 and further submits that mere
selection does not confer right and the judgment of
the Apex Court remain confined to such of the
candidates who were appointed after 9-11-2011 &
SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES
AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A
(20)
terminated in the changed circumstances but may not
apply to those who have not been appointed alike the
present appellants deserves no indulgence and in
support of submission placed reliance on the judgment
in Babita Prasad and others Vs. State of Bihar and
others, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 268.
Counsel further submits that after the selection
process stood completed, which was initiated pursuant
to advertisement no.1372 dt.6-8-2013, 2005 candidates
were appointed on the post of Conductor and although
1446 posts of Conductors are available in the
financial year 2015-16 but in absence of permission
being granted by State Government the advertisement
could not have been published.
We have considered the submissions & with their
assistance perused the material available on record.
It is certainly a sorry state of affairs that in
the present process of selection held for the post of
Conductor one after the other batch of the candidates
are coming into litigation on one pretext or the other
and the Corporation failed to visualize the apparent
error in the process of selection initiated &
indisputably the condition of holding /possessing HMV
Driving Licence could not have been introduced unless
mandate of Sec.45 of the Act,1950 being first complied
with and in the absence of a valid amendment in the
Regulations, condition of HMV Driving Licence could
not be notified in the advertisement for the post of
Conductor and which has created manifold litigation
in the different form of batches of writ
petitions came up to the Court one after the
other and this Court would like to observe
that while issuance of notification eligibility
SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES
AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A
(21)
conditions for the post pre-supposes to be in
accordance with the existing scheme of Rules/
Regulations on the date of advertisement and to be
taken care of with microscopic details and must be
consulted with law department to avoid unnecessary/
multifold litigations but the Corporation failed to
take care of basic & fundamental principles of law
while notifying the vacancies & initiating the process
of selection held for the post of Conductor in the
instant case.
This Court can further visualize & take a judicial
notice that in the earlier time when the selection
process were initiated the ratio of participation
remain 1:5 or at the best 1:10 but in the present
scenario of open selection the ratio by & large comes
to 1:50 & even more and it is the time when the
recruiting agency has to be more vigilant and there
must be check at all the stages till the process is
complete, at the same time it is the duty casted upon
the officers of the recruiting agency to hold fair,
transparent & impartial selection process keeping in
view the mandate of law, providing equal & fair
opportunity to all the candidates participating in the
process of selection, at the same time it should also
be kept in mind, which is also a mandate of law, that
a common standard in evaluating candidature of the
candidates has to be adopted/ followed in the process
and has to be carried out in fulfillment of the
mandate of public employment & Art.14 of the
Constitution of India & to be in strict conformity
with the scheme of relevant rules in vogue.
Indisputably in the instant case at the time when
advertisement was notified, the Corporation introduced
SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES
AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A
(22)
condition of holding/possessing HMV Driving Licence by
the applicants while participating in the selection
process held for the post of Conductor on the basis of
their office order dt.23.04.2010 taking presumption of
amendment made under the relevant Rules/Regulations
without due compliance of Sec.45 of the Act,1950 and
with the previous sanction of the State Government &
publication of the notification in the official
gazette and in the absence of a valid amendment
insertion of such condition of holding/possessing HMV
Driving Licence in the advertisement indeed at that
time was not in conformity with the Regulations in
vogue.
Indisputably in the instant case there exists no
publication of notification in the official gazette
amending Regulation with previous sanction of the
State Government inserting condition of HMV Driving
Licence for the post of Conductor and in absence
thereof condition of HMV Driving Licence cannot be
given effect to by the Corporation in the selection
process initiated pursuant to advertisement
no.219/2009-10 & 152/2010-11 for the post of Conductor
and it could not be part of the Trade Test and after
it was observed by the Ld. Single Judge of this Court
in the batch of petitions titled as Nirmal Kumar Jain
& Ors. Vs. RSRTC, no distinction could have been made
amongst the candidates who approached the Court and
assailed the condition of HMV Driving Licence & by an
interim order participated in the selection process &
the others who did not approach the Court for the
reason that they were holding HMV Driving Licence and
challenged the selection process on other grounds and
indisputably, no participant could be deprived of
SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES
AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A
(23)
their right of fair consideration in the selection
process to which the Corporation is under legal
obligation & despite the controversy being put to rest
after the judgment in Nirmal Kumar Jain's case decided
on 02.09.2011 holding condition of HMV Driving Licence
for the post of Conductor being not in conformity with
the scheme of Regulations, it remain imperative for
the Corporation to apply in rem to all the
participants and confining to the candidates who
approached the Court in our view is not supported with
sound principle and the revised cut off list of
written examination published by the Corporation
dt.19.09.2011 and the final select list of candidates
who had participated in the written test followed with
Trade Test was supposed to be revised in rem declared
on 23.09.2011 taking note who approached the Court was
highly improper & ill advised.
At this stage this Court would like to record that
the manifold questions raised for consideration was
not examined by the learned Single Judge on merits
since the Corporation was interested in getting early
disposal of the petitions, keeping their own interest
and to appoint the candidates as early as possible
tendered their consent which the learned Single Judge
recorded while disposing of batch of petitions vide
judgment dt.09.11.2011 confined relief to those who
approached the Court on or before 9.11.2011 and it may
be further noticed that the candidates who are not
holding HMV Driving Licence & appeared in the trade
test under interim order of the Court, a formula was
deviced for assessment of their performance for 30
marks out of 50 marks of trade test on the percentage
of marks obtained in the written examination of 20
SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES
AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A
(24)
marks in the trade test.
The initial brake-up of the trade test was
20:20:10, meaning thereby 20 for written test, 20 for
driving test & 10 for simulator test, it was agreed
that if the candidate got 15 marks out of 20 in the
trade test would be considered as 37.5 marks out of
50, at the same time if one has got 10 marks out of
20, then his marks would be taken as 25 out of 50
marks and accordingly this invented formula was made
applicable to those who contested & assailed the
requirement of driving licence and granted exemptions
from minimum qualifying marks in the trade test.
In the present batch of petitions the learned
Single Judge repelled all the contentions advanced by
counsel for appellants primarily on the premise that
what is being referred to in the earlier judgment
dt.09.11.2011 stands confined to such of the
applicants/petitioners who approached the Court on or
before 09.11.2011 regardless of any reason and relief
could not be extended to the candidates who have
approached the Court thereafter and the reason behind
was that concession of the Corporation recorded remain
confined to the writ petitioners alone & cannot be
made applicable in rem & those who failed to approach
the Court in time are not entitled to seek/claim
benefit of consent as finality of the selection
process was carried out immediately after the judgment
in the aforesaid case and simultaneously appointments
were made and now if any candidate is given relief of
revised marks in the trade test though approached the
Court after 09.11.2011 liberty was granted to the
Corporation to take independent decision in accordance
with law.
SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES
AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A
(25)
We find substance in the submission of counsel for
appellants & their appeals deserve to succeed for the
reason that the final result came to be declared on
23.09.2011, which became the subject matter of
challenge in batch of petitions known as Prem
Prakash's case (supra) and taking note of the fact
that condition of holding/possessing HMV Driving
Licence has been examined in Nirmal Kumar Jain's case
referring to the provisions that the amended
regulations cannot be given effect to unless notified
in the official gazette in view of Sec.45 of the
Act,1950 the very condition of holding/possessing HMV
Driving Licence under the advertisement being contrary
to law the Corporation was supposed to provide fair
treatment to the candidates in rem with no emphasis to
the HMV Driving Licence who had participated in the
selection process pursuant to advertisement in
question.
Keeping in view the earlier judgment of the Ld.
Single Bench of this Court dt.31.05.2011 in Narpat
Dan's case followed with the judgment dt.02.09.2011 in
Nirmal Kumar Jain's case the revised cut off marks of
the written examination was published by the
Corporation on 19.09.2011 & the final select list on
23.09.2011 and being the subject matter of challenge
in the batch of writ petitions in Prem Prakash's case
(supra), obviously the petitions must have been filed
after 23.09.2011 and as it reveals from the record
that no reply was filed by the Corporation and the
Chairman-cum-Managing Director appeared in person &
agreed to certain terms as was taken note of by the
learned Single Judge while disposing of batch of
petitions the relief stands confined to the writ
SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES
AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A
(26)
petitioners in the judgment dt.09.11.2011 and
thereafter when the present batch of petitions came to
be preferred their grievance was not ventilated &
redressed only on the premise that they failed to
approach the Court on or before 9.11.2011 and if we
take the total period during which the petitions filed
& decided by the learned Single Judge on agreed terms
on 09.11.2011 it was hardly 40-45 days and the view
expressed by the learned Single Judge in terms of what
is being agreed upon & decided while disposing of
bunch of petitions on 09.11.2011 confined to the writ
petitioners alone, in our considered view is not
permissible in law and the Corporation was under
obligation to adopt one & common standard/yardstick in
evaluating candidature of the candidates who had
participated in the common selection process & more so
after this fact has come on record that the
requirement of holding/possessing HMV Driving Licence
was not a mandatory requirement under the scheme of
Regulation at the time when the advertisement came to
be notified and that being so it was imperative for
the Corporation to adopt a method in providing just &
fair treatment after the judgment in Nirmal Kumar
Jain's case with one & the same standard for
evaluating candidature/merit of the individual
candidate who had participated in the common selection
process and the cut off date which the learned Single
Judge fixed in its judgment dt.09.11.2011 restricting
to 09.11.2011 in our considered view is neither
supported with sound reasoning nor is sustainable in
law.
The judgment on which the learned Single Judge
placed reliance in Kailash Chand Sharma Vs. State of
SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES
AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A
(27)
Rajasthan & Ors. (2002) 6 SCC 562 is of no assistance
in the facts of the instant case.
In the instant case the final list was published
on 23.09.2011 and it was stayed by an interim order of
the Court dt.27.09.2011 and the batch of petitions in
Prem Prakash's case (supra) came to be disposed of on
09.11.2011 holding relief confined to petitioners
alone and not to the candidates who had participated
in the selection process and once the Corporation
agreed that error has been committed in notifying the
condition of holding/possessing HMV Driving Licence as
one of the pre-condition of eligibility in
advertisement being not in conformity with the
existing Regulations, certainly relief could not
remain confined to the writ petitioners alone and in
our considered view the writ petitioners who
approached indeed thereafter being similarly situated
and participated in the common selection process are
entitled to seek/claim the same relief and what being
agreed by the Corporation certainly applies in rem to
the candidates who had participated in the common
selection process.
The Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4302/2016 apart
from other issues framed by the learned Single Judge
in its judgment dt.30-7-2012, examined issue no.2 & 5
and we consider it appropriate to refer issue no.2 & 5
framed in the impugned judgment dt.30-7-2012 which
reads as under :-
"Issue no.2
Second issue raised by the petitioners is
arising out of the judgment in the case of
Prem Prakash Sharma (supra). In the
aforesaid judgment, it was agreed that
those petitioners, who were not in
SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES
AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A
(28)
possession of driving licence and applied
for the post of Conductor, would be given
proportionate marks in the trade test on
the formula given in the said judgment.
Issue No.5
The fifth issue is in regard to revision
of marks in trade test on the formula
given by this Court in the case of Prem
Prakash Sharma (supra). The issue
aforesaid is nothing but repetition of the
issue already determined at issue no.2
thus needs no elaboration and direction."
After examining the controversy the Apex Court in
its judgment dt.21-4-2016 while setting aside the
finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in its
judgment dt.30-7-2012 in respect of issue no.2 & 5,
set aside the order of termination of Hanuman Singh
dt.27-5-2013 and further observed that the distinction
which has been made for the candidates who had
approached the Court by 9-11-2011 or thereafter did
not hold a valid reasoning and observed as under :-
"However, we hasten to state so to
appreciate the rationale behind the
said prescription as a required
qualification for the post of a
conductor. Be that as it may we fail to
understand as to how the formula
arrived at by the High Court in its
earlier order cannot be applied to
those who hold a licence and thereby
satisfied the mandatory qualification.
To say the least such a distinction
made by the High Court does not apply
to any valid reasoning much less a
sound one. Therefore, we have no other
option except to set aside the same.
We, therefore, find total infirmity in
the conclusion of the learned Single
Judge as well as the Division Bench.
The selection and appointment should
SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES
AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A
(29)
have, therefore, been made based on the
principal formula which was arrived at
by the learned Single Judge in his
order dated 9th November,2011 and based
on the said formula whomsoever was
eligible to be considered and appointed
should have been allowed to continue.
In the result, the order of the learned
Single Judge dated 30.7.2012 and the
confirmation of the same by the
Division Bench in the order dated
24.9.2013 on issue Nos.2 and 5 are set
aside and the Civil Appeal stands
allowed. The termination order dated
27.5.2013 is set aside and his
appointment as Conductor shall stand
restored.
Pending intervening applications
also stand disposed of leaving it open
for all the intervenors to work out
their remedy before the High Court in
tune with the principle laid down and
the conclusion as well as the result
arrived at in these appeals."
The Apex Court in the judgment dt.21-4-2016
(supra), observed that the distinction introduced by
the learned Single Judge of the candidates who
approached the Court on or before 9-11-2011 or
thereafter does not hold a valid reasoning and is not
sustainable in law at the same time granted liberty to
the intervenors to work out their remedy before the
High Court in tune with the principle laid down and
the conclusion as well as the result arrived at in the
Civil Appeals and in our considered view the present
appellants being similarly situated are entitled to
claim parity and the formula arrived at by the learned
Single Judge in its order dt.9-11-2011 deserves to be
applied in rem to the candidates who had participated
in the selection process & the submission made by the
SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES
AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A
(30)
counsel for the Corporation that the principle laid
down by the Apex Court remained confined to the
candidates who at once appointed & lateron terminated
alike that of Hanuman Singh approached the Apex Court,
such defence is wholly without substance and in our
considered view after the sacrosant date 9-11-2011 has
been considered by the Apex Court of which we have
made a reference, does not hold a valid reasoning,
leaves no manner of doubt that the candidates who had
participated in the selection process are at par and
we are of the view that the terms which were consented
by the Corporation and recorded by the learned Single
Judge in its order dt.9-11-2011 will indeed be
applicable in rem to the candidates who had
participated in the selection process initiated
pursuant to the advertisement in question.
As regards the submission made by counsel for
respondent-Corporation that the candidates appointed
have not been impleaded as party respondents, in our
considered view is without substance for the reason
that the present appeals-writ petitions came to be
preferred against the inaction/arbitrary action of the
respondent Corporation in holding selection process
pursuant to advertisement in question and since the
Corporation is party to the litigation & impleaded as
respondent & sufficient opportunity has been afforded
to those who have been given appointment by impleading
them as party in the appeals/writ petitions in the
representative capacity and that apart it is normally
the merit which will prevail besides it claiming no
relief against any individual candidate and prayed for
by the appellants as such are at least not the
necessary party to be impleaded as respondents.
SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES
AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A
(31)
As regards the submission made by counsel for
respondent Corporation that the advertised vacancies
have been filled and thereafter further selection was
held in the year 2013 and appointments are made on the
post of Conductor pursuant thereto, in our considered
view may not be of any substance for the reason that
the judgment was pronounced on 9-11-2011 making
distinction amongst those who approached the Court
before or after 9-11-2011 is not supported with valid
reasoning at the same time without any delay it was
questioned by filing respective writ petitions and at
the first instance that was disposed of with direction
to make representation and after rejection of their
representation again with no loss of time approached
the Court by filing writ petition which came to be
dismissed vide judgment impugned dt.30-7-2012 and that
is subject matter of challenge in the batch of appeals
and it can safely be recorded that there was no delay
on the part of the writ petitioners in approaching to
the Court and as regards the laches are concerned,
that could not be attributed to the present appellants
depriving them from their right of fair consideration
and the candidates who have contested their claim
immediately after passing of the judgment by the
learned Single Judge dt.9-11-2011, if such candidates
finds place in the order of merit in our considered
view deserves indulgence & their legitimate right of
fair consideration & appointment could not be defeated
on technicalities and cannot be countenanced by this
Court and it will be open for the respondent
Corporation to first fill the advertised vacancies in accordance with the criteria which the learned Single Judge has indicated in its order dt.9-11-2011 and is SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A (32) to be made applicable in rem to the candidates who had participated in the selection process and the candidates appointed after 9-11-2011 if are not in the select list against the advertised vacancies it will be open for the Corporation to adjust if permissible by law but the candidates who finds place in the select list and who was not at fault deserves indulgence to seek appointment.
At the cost of repetition and to hold that each one of them is entitled to access to justice & the action has to be fair, impartial & good conscience, we would like to further observe that in the process of public employment first & the foremost consideration is the merit which at no cost should sacrifice in filling up the posts amongst candidates/participants & should be obviously after holding fair & impartial process of selection & which is the normal rule of service jurisprudence & is also a requirement & mandate of Art.14 of the Constitution.
As regards the submission made in respect of such of the candidates who were found to be unfit on account of partial colour blindness & declared ineligible we find from the record that they were declared unfit by the medical board for the post of Driver and not for the post of Conductor. In our considered view they may be medically examined by the Board to be constituted by the Superintendent, SMS Hospital, Jaipur and if found medically fit for the post of Conductor and finds place in the select list, may be considered for appointment to the post of Conductor.
In view of what has been discussed by us (supra), the controversy/questions raised for consideration & set forth from the pleadings & the submissions of the SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A (33) parties, all the three questions raised are answered accordingly.
Consequently, the appeals succeed & are hereby allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge impugned dt.30.07.2012 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent Corporation is directed to give benefit to the candidates who had participated in the selection process in rem on the principles noticed by the learned Single Judge while disposing of batch of petitions vide judgment dt.09.11.2011 and those who finds place in the select list be considered for appointment against the advertised vacancies with liberty to the Corporation to adjust the candidates who did not find place in the revised select list but given appointment as far as possible & permissible by the law. Compliance be made within two months. No cost.
(DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI),J (AJAY RASTOGI),J.
VS SHEKHAWAT SR.P.A. SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A (34) SCHEDULE-A
1. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.1396/2012 APPELLANT :-
VISHNU LAL SEN S/O SH. PREM CHAND SEN, AGED 22 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE NAYA TEELA, POST BORKHANDI KALAN, TEHSIL PEEPLU, DIST.TONK (HAVING ROLL NO.58430).
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
3. ABHIMANYU SINGH YADAV, HAVING ROLL NO.47487, THROUGH MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
4. SURENDRA KUMAR DADARWAAL, HAVING ROLL NO.70091 THROUGH MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.1/2013 APPELLANT :-
1. SATYAPAL SINGH S/O SHRI MAHARAJ SINGH, AGED 30 YEARS, R/O VILL. NAGLA CHURAMAN, POST LUDHVAI, TEHSIL & DISTT. BHARATPUR (HAVING ROLL NO.43085) V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
3. DHANNA RAM S/O SRI CHAND SAINI, V&P KHADRA, TEHSIL NEEM KA THANA, DISTRICT SIKAR.
4. JHABER SINGH SUNDA S/O MANGLA RAM SUNDA, KARANPURA, POST KHUD, DISTT. SIKAR.
5. RAJ KUMAR YADAV S/O SHRI VIRENDRA SINGH YADAV, AGED 21 YEARS, R/O V&P KAYASA, TEHSIL BEHROR, DISTT. ALWAR (HAVING ROLL NO.53140) SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A (35)
3. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.103/2013 APPELLANTS :-
1) RAJESH KUMAR LAKHARA S/O OM PRAKASH LAKHARA, AGED 28 YEARS, R/O SAWAI KATLA, POST SARWAD, DISTT. AJMER (HAVING ROLL NO.39546).
2) GUMAN SINGH S/O BHANWAR LAL, AGED 33 YEARS, R/O V&P MARWA, VIA NARENA DISTT. JAIPUR. (HAVING ROLL NO.24584) V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
3. ABHIMANYU SINGH YADAV, HAVING ROLL NO.47487, THROUGH MEMBER SECRERTARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
4. SURENDRA KUMAR DADARWALL, HAVING ROLL NO.70091 THROUGH MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
4. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.104/2013 APPELLANT :-
CHAND KISHORE SHARMA S/O SHRI GHANSHYAM DUTT SHARMA, AGED 35 YEARS, R/O V&P MANDAWAR, DISTT. ALWAR (HAVING ROLL NO.53040).
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
3. SHIV PAL SINGH RAJAWAT, HAVING ROLL NO.31852, THROUGH MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
4. JITENDRA PAL SINGH,HAVING ROLL NO.23373 THROUGH MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A (36)
5. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.105/2013 APPELLANT :-
RAJENDRA SINGH S/O SHRI ANOOP SINGH, AGED 34 YEAR, R/O V&P RAJALIYA, VIA KUCHAMAN, DISTT. NAGAUR (HAVING ROLL NO.40155).
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
3. JAI KUMAR JOSHI, S/O SH. VIJAY KUMAR JOSHI, R/O VILLAGE SIKANDARA, TEHSIL SIKRAI, DISTT. DAUSA (HAVING ROLL NO.29225).
4. NANHE SINGH RAJPUT, S/O BHERU SINGH, R/O VILLAGE KIKASAR, POST SONPALSAR, TEHSIL SARDARSAHAR, DISTT. CHURU (HAVING ROLL NO.70039).
5. JITENDRA SHARMA S/O SH. PREM NARAIN SHARMA, R/O OUTSIDE DELHI GATE, MEENA PADI, ALWAR (HAVING ROLL NO.46780).
6. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.106/2013 APPELLANT :-
KARAN SINGH NARUKA S/O SHRI HANUMAN SINGH, AGED 29 YEARS, R/O H.NO.4, SHIV VIHAR COLONY, JAGDAMBA NAGAR, HARNATHPURA, RAWAN GATE, KALWAR ROAD, JHOTWARA, JAIPUR (RAJ.) (HAVING ROLL NO.31840) V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGHT ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
3. JAI KUMAR JOSHI, S/O SH. RAM MILAN KUMAR JOSHI, R/O VILLAGE SIKANDARA, TEHSIL SIKRAI, DISTT. DAUSA (HAVING ROLL NO.29225)
4. RAM KISHAN SHARMA S/O RAMSWAROOP R/O SODIYA MOHALLA NEAR PULIA, VILLAGE BASWA, DISTT. DAUSA (RAJ.) (ROLL NO.31851)
5. JITENDRA KUMAR SHARMA S/O SH. PREM NARAYAN SHARMA, R/O OPP. DELHI DARWAJA, MEENA PADI, ALWAR (HINDAUN SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A (37) DEPOT) (ROLL NO.46780)
7. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.112/2013 APPELLANT :-
SANJAY KUMAR SON OF SURAJ BHAN, BY-CASTE JAT, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE POST KHORA, VIA BAYA, TEHSIL DANTA RAMGARH, DISTRICT SIKAR (RAJASTHAN).
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HEAD QUARTERS JAIPUR, THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. RAJASTHAN STATE ROADWAYS TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HEADQUARTERS THROUGH MEMBER SECRETARY.
3. RAJASTHAN STATE ROADWAYS TRANSPORT CORPORATION, DEPUT SIKAR, DISTRICT SIKAR THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER. PROFORMA RESPONDENT :-
4. MANOJ KUMAR SAINI SON OF CHHOGA LAL, SAINI, RESIDENT OF VPO PRATAPURA, KHANIDI, VIA LOSAL, DISTRICT SIKAR.
8. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.115/2013 APPELLANT :-
RAJESH KUMAR CHOUDHARY S/O SHRI SOHAN LAL CHOUDHARY BY CAST JAT AGE ABOUT 33 YEAR R/O PLOT NO 21 NEAR FCI GODAM INDIRA COLONY BIKANER (RAJASTHAN) V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIWAHAN MARG, C- SCHEME, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION HEAD OFFICE, PARIWAHAN MARG, C-SCHEME, JAIPUR.
9. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.1225/2013 APPELLANT :-
SHISHU PAL BISHNOI S/O SHRI BHOOP RAM BISHNOI, AGED 36 YEARS, R/O RAISINGHNAGAR, DISTT. SRIGANGANAGAR, RAJASTHAN, BEARING ROLL NO. (20908).
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A (38)
3. DHANNA RAM S/O SHRI CHAND SAINI, V & P KHADRA, TEHSIL NEEM KA THANA, DISTRICT-SIKAR (RAJ.)
4. JHABER SINGH SUNDA S/O SHRI MANGLA RAM SUNDA, KARANPURA, POST KHUD, DISTT. SIKAR.
5. PHS CONSULTANTS PVT. LIMITED THROUGH ITS SR. CONSULTANT, C-9, SOUTH EXTENSION, PART-II, NEW DELHI- 110049.
10. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.1227/2013 APPELLANT :-
RAJENDRA SINGH KHIDIYA S/O SHRI RAM SINGH KHIDIYA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDENT OF HARI OM COLONY, AJMER ROAD, KEKRI, DISTRICT AJMER (RAJASTHAN) V E R S U S RESPONDENT :-
RAJASTHAN STATE ROADWAYS TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR (CMD), HEAD OFFICE, RSRTC OPPOSITE CIVIL LINE, RAILWAY-PHATAK, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN.
11. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.128/2013 APPELLANT :-
DINESH CHAND S/O SHRI KHUMANI RAM, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O C-64, INDIRA COLONY, HEERA DAS, BHARATPR (HAVING ROLL NO.43316) V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHANT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
3. DHANNA RAM S/O SRI CHAND SAINI, V & P KHADRA, TEHSIL NEEM KA THANA, DISTRICT SIKAR.
4. JHABER SINGH SUNDA S/O. MANGLA RAM SUNDA, KARANPURA, POST KHUD, DISTT. SIKAR.
5. PHS CONSULTANTS PVT. LIMITED THROUGH ITS SR.
CONSULTANT, C-9, SOUTH EXTENSION, PART-II, NEW DELHI 110049.
12. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.132/2013 APPELLANT :-
VIRENDER SINGH KHANGAROT S/O SH. MADAN SINGH KHANGAROT, AGED 30 YEARS, R/O V&P LADERA TEHSIL DUDU, DISTT. JAIPUR (HAVING ROLL NO.24474) SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A (39) V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
3. JAI KUMAR JOSHI, S/O SH. VIJAY KUMAR JOSHI, R/O VILLAGE SIKANDARA, TEHSIL SIKRAI, DISTT. DAUSA (HAVING ROLL NO.29225)
4. NANHE SINGH RAJPUT S/O BHERU SINGH, R/O VILLAGE KIKASAR, POST SONPALSAR, TEHSIL SARDARSAHAR, DISTT. CHURU (HAVING ROLL NO.70039)
13. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.136/2013 APPELLANT :-
ARUN SINGH S/O LATE SHRI HUKUM SINGH, AGED 26 YEARS, R/O V&P PATHENA, TEHSIL WEIR, DISTT. BHARATPUR (HAVING ROLL NO.45819) V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
3. SHIV PAL SINGH RAJAWAT, HAVING ROLL NO.31852, THROUGH MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
4. JITENDRA PAL SINGH, HAVING ROLL NO.23373 THROUGH MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
14. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.137/2013 APPELLANT :-
MANOJ GURJAR S/O SHRAVAN KUMAR GURJAR, AGED 29 YEARS, RESIDENT OF 321, OPPOSITE MADRASI BABI KI BAGICHI, SHANKAR NAGAR, KAGDIWADA, JAIPUR (HAVING ROLL NO.40109) V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A (40) ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
3. BHOLA RAM GURJAR HAVING ROLL NO.59535 THROUGH MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
4. DHARAM RAJ GURJAR HAVING ROLL NO.24279 THROUGH MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
15. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.1384/2013 APPELLANT :-
MOHD. RAFIQ S/O SHRI GULAM HUSSAIN, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O GALI NO.23, RAM PURA BASTI, LAL GARH, BIKANER (HAVING ROLL NO.21296).
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
3. JAI KUMAR JOSHI, S/O SH. VIJAY KUMAR JOSHI, R/O VILLAGE SIKANDARA, TEHSIL SIKRAI, DISTT. DAUSA (HAVING ROLL NO.29225).
4. NANHE SINGH RAJPUT, S/O BHERU SINGH, R/O VILLAGE KIKASAR, POST SONPALSAR, TEHSIL SARDARSAHAR, DISTT. CHURU (HAVING ROLL NO.70039)
5. JITENDRA SHARMA S/O SH. PREM NARAIN SHARMA, R/O OUTSIDE DELHI GATE, MEENA PADI, ALWAR (HAVING ROLL NO.46780)
16. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.1386/2014 APPELLANT :-
MANCHHI RAM S/O SHRI TODA RAM, AGED 30 YRS, R/O VILLAGE KHAKHARKI, TEHSIL MERTA CITY, DISTRICT-NAGOUR (RAJASTHAN).
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A (41) JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY SERVICE SELETION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
17. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.1440/2012 APPELLANT :-
DHARMENDRA KUMAR S/O SH. BEGRAJ DERWAL AGE ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE SHAYAMPURA (POORVI) TEH. DANTA RAMGARH DISTT. SIKAR.
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH IT'S MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION COMMISSION, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
18. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.145/2013 APPELLANT :-
DEEPENDRA SINGH SHEKHAWAT S/O MADHU SUDAN SINGH SHEKHAWAT, AGED 25 YEARS, R/O V&P MONDRU, SRIMADHOPUR, DISTRICT SIKAR (HAVING ROLL NO.18363) V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
3. JAI KUMAR JOSHI, S/O SH. VIJAY KUMAR JOSHI, R/O VILLAGE SIKANDARA, TEHSIL SIKRAI, DISTT. DAUSA (HAVING ROLL NO.29225)
4. NANHE SINGH RAJPUT, S/O BHERU SINGH, R/O VILLAGE KIKASAR, POST SONPALSAR, TEHSIL SARDARSAHAR, DISTT.
CHURU (HAVING ROLL NO.70039)
19. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.1454/2012 APPELLANT :-
BHAGWAN SINGH BARATH S/O SAWAI SINGH BARATH R/O NEAR TAYAGY SCHOOL, TILAK NAGAR, BIKANER.
V E R S U S
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH IT'S MANAGING DIRECTOR PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION COMMISSION, SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A (42) RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
20. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.1461/2012 APPELLANT :-
RAJ KUMAR ACHARYA S/O SHRI RAM GOPAL ACHARYA, AGED 30 YEARS, R/O KHADERA TEHSIL KEKRI, DISTT. AJMER (HAVING ROLL NO.24703) V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
3. DHANNA RAM S/O SRI CHAND SAINI, V&P KHADRA, TEHSIL NEEM KA THANA, DISTRICT AJMER.
4. PARAS RAM JAT S/O NANU LAL JAT, VILLAGE SONDIFAL, POST BOKAHNDI KALA TEHSIL PIPLU DISTRICT TONK.
21. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.1499/2012 APPELLANT :-
DEV ANAND S/O GOKUL CHAND, AGED 32 YEARS, R/O BHEEM COLONY, BARLABAS, RAJGARH, ALWAR (HAVING ROLL NO.46907) V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
22. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.1535/2012 APPELLANT :-
DALIP SINGH @ DALEEP SINGH JHAKAD S/O MAM CHAND, AGED 24 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE DHANI MAJHAU SINGNOR, DISTT.
JHUNJHUNU (HAVING ROLL NO.14612) V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A (43)
3. ABHIMANYU SINGH YADAV, HAVING ROLL NO.47487, THROUGH MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
4. SURENDRA SINGH DADARWAAL, HAVING ROLL NO.70091 THROUGH MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
23. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.1549/2012 APPELLANT :-
RAM PRASAD SHARMA S/O SHRI BHANWAR LAL SHARMA AGE 32 YEARS R/O VILLAGE & POST AKODIYA, TEHSIL CHAKSU, DISTRICT JAIPUR.
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THROUGH THE CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, C- SCHEME, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, C-SCHEME, JAIPUR.
24. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.1553/2012 APPELLANTS :-
1. MAHESH CHAND JATAV SON OF SHRI CHHOTE LAL JATAV, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, BY CASTE JATAV (S.C.), RESIDENT OF PLOT NO.180, RANJEET NAGAR,, 60 FEET ROAD, ALWAR (RAJ.)
2. BHANWAR SINGH SON OF CHHOTE LAL, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, BY CASTE JATAV (S.C.), RESIDENT OF BUDH VIHAR KALONI-BAHALA, TEHSIL RAMGARH, DISTT. ALWAR
3. RAJVEER SON OF SHRI INDRAJ SINGH, BY CASTE JAT (OBC),, AD ABOUT 25 YEARS,, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & POST OFFICE MANOHARPUR, VIA ISLAMPUR, TEHSIL CHIRAWA, DISTT. JHUNJHUNU.
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. PREM PRAKASH SHARMA SON OF SHRI DURGA LAL SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDENT OF BADA RAMDWARA, BEHIND BEDIWALE, BAL, BUNDI DISTRICT BUNDI.
2. RAJASTHAN RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR THROUGH CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A (44)
3. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
4. HARI RAM GURJAR SON OF KANA RAM GURJAR, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, BY CASTE GURJAR (S.B.C.), RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHANDPURI, TEHSIL THANAGAZI, DISTT. ALWAR (RAJ.)
25. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.1595/2012 APPELLANT :-
AVDHESH KUMAR MEENA S/O SHRI RAMPAL MEENA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE THEKADIN, POST BALLUPURA, TEHSIL RAJGARH, DISTT. ALWAR (RAJ.) V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
26. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.160/2013 APPELLANTS :-
1. HARPHOOL RAM SON OF SHRI MALIRAM, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE & POST GOVINDPURA, VIA PALSANA, DISTRICT SIKAR.
2. RAMSWAROOP YADAV S/O SHRI HEERA LAL YADAV AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/O VILLAGE KUNDALPUR, POST ANTARI VIA SANWALI, TEHSIL & DISTRICT SIKAR.
3. OMPRAKASH YADAV S/O SHRI KANHAIYA LAL, AGED ABOUT 26 YRS., R/O VILLAGE & POST DADLA, TEHSIL SANGANER, DISTRICT JAIPUR.
4. GIRDHARI LAL YADAV S/O SHRI HEMRAJ YADAVG, AGED ABOUT 28 YRS., R/O PALSANA, TEHSIL DANTARAMGARH, DISTRICT SIKAR.
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. DY. MANAGING DIRECTOR (ADMN.), RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
3. MEMBER SECRERTARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
27. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.1602/2012 APPELLANTS :-
SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A (45)
1. PRABHAKAR GOSWAMI S/O. SHRI VASUDEV, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE & POST MILAKPUR, TEHSIL BAYANA, DISTRICT BHARATPUR (OBC).
2. HARDAYAL SINGH S/O. SHRI SWAROOP SINGH, AGED ABOUT
28 YEARS, R/O INDRA NAGAR, NEAR NALA HEERADAS, DISTRICT BHARATPUR.
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM- MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. THE MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RSRTC, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
28. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.1607/2012 APPELLANT :-
ADITYA PANCHOLI S/O. SHRI MUKESH KUMAR PANCHOLI, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, BY CASTE - BRAHMAN, R/O. JORHPURA, SUNDARIYAWAS, VIA JOBNER, TEHSIL-PHULERA, DISTT. JAIPUR (RAJ.) V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIWAHAN MARG, S- SCHEME, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION HEAD OFFICE, PARIWAHAN MARG, C-SCHEME, JAIPUR.
29. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.1618/2014 APPELLANT :-
CHUNNA LAL S/O SHRI BABU LAL, AGED ABOUT 37 YRS., R/O ADARSH NAGAR, PACHGAON, DHOLPURA, RAJASTHAN.
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
30. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.163/2013 APPELLANT :-
UDAIJEET SINGH S/O SHRI BABU LAL, AGE ABOUT 30 YEARS, BY CASTE KHATEEK, RESIDENT OF 171/239, PRATAP NAGAR, SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A (46) SANGANER, JAIPUR.
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. THE RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN BHAWAN, JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN).
2. THE CHIEF MANAGER, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR DISTRICT JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN).
3. THE MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION COMMISSION, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARGE, JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN).
4. NARESH KUMAR BENIWAL S/O SHRI GANGARAM BENIWAL, AGE ABOUT 24 YEARS, BY CASTE - RAIGAR, R/O INDRA COLONY, MANOHAR PURA, TEHSIL SHAHPURA, DISTT. JAIPUR. RAJASTHAN.
5. KAILASH CHAND JAT S/O SHRI SONI LAL JAT, BY CASTE JAT, R/O VILLAGE RAJPURWAS TALA, VIA-ACHROL, TEHSIL JAMWARAMGARH, DISTT. JAIPUR, RAJ.
6. SUKESH KUMAR SHARMA S/O SHRI BANWARI LAL SHARMA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE RAJPURA SIKH, POST KOLAHEDA, TEHSIL THANAGAJI, DISTT. ALWAR, RAJASTHAN.
31. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.168/2013 APPELLANTS :-
1. ASHOK KUMAR S/O SHRI POORAN SINGH R/O VILLAGE POST MAHRAVAR, TEHSIL KUMHER, BHARATPUR, RAJASTHAN.
2. RAJVEER SINGH S/O SHRI BODAN SINGH, R/O VILLAGE VISHDA, POST JHAROLI, TEHSIL & DISTRICT BHARATPUR, RAJASTHAN.
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
32. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.175/2013 APPELLANT :-
RANVIR SINGH YADAV S/O SHRI RAJARAM YADAV AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE AND POST GUNTA, TEHSIL BANSOOR, DISTRICT ALWAR (RAJASTHAN).
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A (47) ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. DY. MANAGING DIRECTOR (ADMN.), RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
3. MEMBER SECRETARY SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
PROFORMA RESPONDENT :-
4. RAMESH CHAND S/O JAGDISH PRASAD YADAV AGED ABOUT 32 YRS., R/O OF AILLAGE SHAHIPUR, POST GOONTA, TEHSIL BANSOOR, DISTRICT ALWAR (RAJASTHAN).
33. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.176/2013 APPELLANT :-
ALOK KUMAR S/O SHRI BRIJENDRA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE BISDA, POST JHAROLI, TEHSIL & DISTRICT BHARATPUR, RAJASTHAN (HAVING ROLL NO.45803).
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. DY. MANAGING DIRECTOR (ADMN.), RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
3. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
34. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.177/2013 APPELLANT :-
1. OM PRAKASH YADAV S/O SHRI BHOLU RAM, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE MANDOTA, VAYA KHOND, DISTRICT SIKAR (RAJ.).
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
35. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.1779/2014 APPELLANT :-
MANOJ KUMAR S/O SHRI GOVERDHAN SINGH AGE 29 YEARS R/O SANJAY NAGAR, POST - BHOJASAR, VIA-NAU, TEHSIL & DISTRICT JHUNJHUNU (RAJ.) SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A (48) V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRERTARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
3. DHANNA RAM S/O SHRI CHAND SAINI, V & P KHADRA, TEHSIL-NEEM KA THANA, DISTRICT SIKAR (RAJ.)
4. PARAS RAM JAT S/O SHRI NANU LAL JAT, VILLAGE SONDIFAL, POST BOKAHNDI KALA, TEHSIL PIPLU DISTRICT TONK (RAJ.)
36. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.179/2013 APPELLANT :-
HARVENDRA SINGH S/O SHRI RAMVEER SINGH BY CAST JAT AGE ABOUT 24 YEAR R/O HOUSE NO. 630 KHOTI GULPADA BAGH COLONY BHARATPUR DISTRICT BHARATPUR (RAJASTHAN) V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIWAHAN MARG, C- SCHEME, JAIPUR.
2. SUB MANAGING DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION) RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
37. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.187/2013 APPELLANT :-
RAJ PAL S/O SHRI SITA RAM MEEL BY CAST JAT AGE ABOUT 25 YEAR R/O VILLAGE-PURA BADI TEHSIL SIKAR DISTRICT SIKAR (RAJASTHAN) V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIWAHAN MARG, C- SCHEME, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION HEAD OFFICE, PARIWAHAN MARG, C-SCHEME, JAIPUR.
38. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.191/2013 APPELLANT :-
BHANWAR SINGH S/O SHRI JAY SINGH SHEKHAWAT BY CASTE RAJPUT AGED ABOUT 26 YRS R/O MANGRAH, POST AJITGARH, TEHSIL SRIMADHOPUR, DISTRICT SIKAR, RAJASTHAN.
SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A (49) V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRERTARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
39. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.193/2013 APPELLANT :-
HEMANT KUMAR S/O SHRI HARI RAM BY CAST JAT AGE ABOUT 26 YEAR R/O MAJARA KATH TEHSIL BEHROR DISTRICT ALWAR (RAJASTHAN).
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIWAHAN MARG, C- SCHEME, JAIPUR.
2. SUB MANAGING DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION) RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
40. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.1940/2014 APPELLANT :-
SURENDRA KUMAR S/O CHHAGAN LAL, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O SHERPURA, SUJAWAXS, VIA RANOLI, DISTRICT - SIKAR (RAJ.) V E R S U S RESPONDNETS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
3. JAI KUMAR JOSHI S/O SH. VIJAY KUMAR JOSHI, R/O VILLAGE SIKANDARA, TEHSIL SIKRAI, DISTT. DAUSA (HAVING ROLL NO.29225)
4. NANHE SINGH RAJPUT, S/O BHERU SINGH, R/O VILLAGE KIKASAR, POST SONPALSAR, TEHSIL SARDARSAHAR, DISTT.
CHURU (HAVING ROLL NO.70039) PROFORM RESPONDNET :-
VIRENDER SINGH KHANGAROT S/O SH. MADAN SINGH KHANGAROT, AGED 30 YEARS, R/O V&P LADERA TEHSIL-DUDU, DISTT. JAIPUR (HAVING ROLL NO.24474).
SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A (50)
41. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.2/2013 APPELLANT :-
PRITAM SINGH MEENA S/O SH. GANGA SAHAY JI MEENA, AGED 28 YEARS, VILLAGE PALDI KHURD & POST MATASULA, TEHSIL TODA BHEEM, DISTT. KARAULI (HAVING ROLL NO.44636).
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
3. MUKESH CHAND MEENA S/O SRI MAHESH CHAND V & P PICHUNA, TEHSIL ROOPWAS, DIST. BHARATPUR.
42. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.201/2013 APPELLANT : -
HARLAL SINGH YADAV S/O SHRI HANUMAN PRASAD YADAV, AGED 26 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAWAIPURA, VIA RANOLI, TEHSIL DANTA RAMGARH, DISTRICT SIKAR.
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (ADMINISTRATION) RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
43. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.202/2013 APPELLANT :-
RAJVEER SINGH S/O SHRI ISHWAR SINGH, BY CASTE JAT, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE BHAGINA TEHSIL CHIRAWA, DISTRICT JHUNJHUNU.
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, CHOMU HOUSE, JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN)-302001
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, CHOMU HOUSE, JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN)
44. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.2080/2014 APPELLANT :-
DEEPAK KUMAR SHARMA SON OF MANOHAR LAL SHARMA, AGED SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A (51) ABOUT 26 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & POST MANDAWARI, TEHSIL LALSOT, DISTRICT DAUSA (RAJ.) V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. THE RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN BHAWAN, JAIPUR (RAJ.).
2. THE CHIEF MANAGER RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION DAUSA DEPOT, DISTRICT DAUSA (RAJ.)
3. THE MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION COMMISSION, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR (RAJ.)
45. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.212/2013 APPELLANT :-
KHINYA RAM GODARA S/O SHRI BHAWANI SINGH GODARA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE KHARNAL, TEHSIL & DISTRICT NAGOUR, RAJASTHAN.
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
46. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.218/2013 APPELLANT :-
UMMED SINGH SHARMA S/O SHRI POORAN RAM SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, BY CASTE SHARMA, R/O VILLAGE MANOTA KHURD, POST MANOTA KALAN, TEHSIL NAGAR, DISTRICT BHARATPUR (RAJ.) (GEN. ROLL NO.45807).
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HEAD OFFICE JAIPUR THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. DEPUTY GENERAL (ADMINISTRATION) AND MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HEAD OFFICE JAIPUR (RAJ.).
47. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.230/2013 APPELLANT :-
MAHAVEER PRASAD SHARMA S/O SHRI NATHU LAL SHARMA, AGED SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A (52) 30 YEARS, R/O V&P DANTALAB MEENA VIA GHATWARI, TEHSIL JAMWARAMGARH, DISTT. JAIPUR (HAVING ROLL NO.38200) v E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
3. JITENDRA PAL SINGH HAVING ROLL NO.23373 THROUGH MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
4. NANHE SINGH RAJPUT HAVING ROLL NO.70039 THROUGH MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
48. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.234/2013 APPELLANT :-
1. JOHARI LAL MEENA S/O SHRI SUKH LAL MEENA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & POST GULLANA, TEHSIL BASWA, DISTRICT DAUSA (RAJASTHAN).
2. RAMESH CHAND MEENA S/O SHRI PARSADI RAM MEENA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & POST BANAWAR, TEHSIL MAHWA, DISTRICT DAUSA (RAJASTHAN).
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. THE RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CHOMU HOUSE, JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN).
2. THE MEMBER SECRETARY SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CHOMU HOUSE, JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN).
49. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.235/2013 APPELLANT :-RAJESH KUMAR S/O PURAN MAL SHARMA, AGED 28 YEARS, R/O TIYAPATTI UCHAIN, TEHSIL RUPWAS, BHARATPUR (HAVING ROLL NO.51632) V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A (53) STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
3. DHANNA RAM S/O SRI CHAND SAINI, V & P KHADRA, TEHSIL NEEM KA THANA, DISTRICT SIKAR.
4. JHABER SINGH SUNDA S/O MANGLA RAM SUNDA, KARANPURA, POST KHUD, DISTT SIKAR.
5. PHS CONSULTANTS PVT. LIMITED THORUGH ITS SR.
CONSULTANT, C-9 SOUTH EXTENSION, PART-II, NEW DELHI 110049.
50. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.241/2013 APPELLANT :-
MOOL CHAND S/O SHRI RAMESHWAR LAL RAIGER, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O V & P JAYRAMPURA VIA JAHOTA, PS HARMADA, TEHSIL AMER, DISTRICT JAIPUR (HAVING ROLL NO.37796) V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
PROFORMA RESPONDENT :-
3. RAJENDRA KUMAR RAIGAR S/O SUWA LAL RAIGAR, R/O VILLAGE AND POST SAIWAD, TEHSIL SHAHPURA, DISTRICT JAIPUR.
51. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.242/2013 APPELLANT :-
MOTHARAM RIGAR SON OF SHRI PRABHATI LAL RAIGAR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O TIGARIA, ITAWA BHOPCHI, TEHSIL CHOMU, DISTRICT JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN).
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS:-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, C- SCHEME, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HEAD OFFICE PARIVAHAN MARG, C-SCHEME, JAIPUR. PROFORMA RESPONDENT :-
3. SHRIRAM GURJAR SON OF SHRI BODILAL GURJAR, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, BY CASTE GURJAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST TEVRI, VIRATNAGAR, JAIPUR.
52. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.243/2013 SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A (54) APPELLANT :-
VIJAY SINGH S/O SHRI POORAN SINGH BY CAST GURJAR AGE ABOUT 34 YEAR R/O VILLAGE & POST GUHANA TEHSIL DEEG DISTRICT BHARATPUR (RAJASTHAN) V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIWAHAN MARG, C- SCHEME, JAIPUR.
2. SUB MANAGING DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION), RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION HEAD OFFICE, PARIWAHAN MARG, C-SCHEME, JAIPUR.
53. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.244/2013 APPELLANT :-
BANWARILAL GADWAL S/O SHRI BEHRURAM GADWAL, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE & POST KISHANPURA, VIA BAGHAL, TEHSIL CHOMU, DISTRICT JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN). (ROLL NO.37826) V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
PROFORM RESPONDENTS :-
3. ABHIMANYU SINGH YADAV, HAVING ROLL NUMBER 47487 THROUGH MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
4. SURENDRA KUMAR DADARWAL, HAVING ROLL NUMBER 70091 THROUGH MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
5. SHAMBHU LAL YOGI S/O SHRI JAGANNATH YOGI, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE JHAPADA, TEHSIL LALSOT, DISTRICT DAUSA.
6. ABDUL RAIS SHEKH S/O SHRI ABDUL HAMMID SHEKH, AGED 34 YEARS, R/O NAI ABADI SHAHPURA, DISTRICT BHILWARA.
7. KRISHNA RAM CHOUDHARY S/O MEWA RAM JAT, AGED 29 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE TURKIAWAS, VIA JOBNER, DISTRICT JAIPUR.
8. BHUP SINGH S/O SHRI PHOOL CHAND, AGED ABOUT 28 SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A (55) YEARS, R/O VPO BAHKARANA, TEHSIL KOTPUTLI, DISTRICT JAIPUR.
9. RAJESH KUMAR LAKHARA S/O OM PRAKASH LAKHARA, AGED 28 YEARS, R/O SAWAI KATLA, POST SARWAD, DISTRICT AJMER.
10. GUMAN SINGH S/O BHANWAR LAL, AGED ABOUT 34 YEAR, R/O V & P MARWA, VIA NARENA, DISTRICT JAIPUR.
11. VIJENDRA CHOUDHARY S/O KAJOD MAL CHOUDHARY, AGED 34 YEARS, R/O V & P 7 CHAK JAITPURA, MAWALIYON KI DHANI, TEHSIL AMER, JAIPUR.
54. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.255/2013 APPELLANT :-
ANIL KUMAR S/O SHRI JAI SINGH, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O GRAM GADA KHERA, TEHSIL BUHANA, DISTRICT JHUNJHUNU (RAJ.) (HAVING ROLL NO.14903).
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
3. DHANNA RAM S/O SRI CHAND SAINI, V & P KHADRA, TEHSIL NEEM KA THANA, DISTRICT SIKAR.
4. JHABER SINGH SUNDA S/O MANGLA RAM SUNDA, KARANPURA, POST KHUD, DISTT. SIKAR.
55. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.262/2013 APPELLANT :-
KISHAN LAL MEENA S/O MANADEO PRASAD MEENA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDENT OF LADI KA BASS, TEHSIL & DISTRICT DAUSA (HAVING ROLL NO.29686).
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
56. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.263/2013 APPELLANT :-
ARVIND KUMAR BHURIA S/O SHRI OM PRAKASH BHURIA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, BY CASTE MEGHWAL (SC) RESIDENT OF SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A (56) VILLAGE PURA KI DHANI (KHIDERSAR) POST DERWALA, DISTRICT JHUNJHUNU.
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM- MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
57. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.264/2013 APPELLANTS :-
1. MURLI MANOHAR DAS S/O SHRI RAM VILAS DAS, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, BY CASTE SWAMI (OBC) RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DAYALPURA, POST LAWA, TEHSIL MALPURA, DISTRICT TONK (RAJ.).
2. NANU LAL JAT S/O SHRI JAGDISH JAT, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, BY CASTE JAT (OBC) R/O VILLAGE POST RIDLIYA (RAMPURA) TEHSIL TODARAISINGH DISTRICT TONK.
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM- MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
58. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.265/2013 APPELLANTS :-
1. GANGADHAR S/O SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, BY CASTE BALAI (SC) RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SOTWARA, TEHSIL NAWALGARH, DISTRICT JHUNJHUNU (RAJ.).
2. INDRA PAL S/O SHRI RAM KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, BY CASTE MEGHWAL (SC), R/O VILLAGE PURA KI DHANI VIA NUA, POST DERWALA, TEHSIL & DISTRICT JHUNJHUNU.
3. RAJVEER SINGH S/O BALDEV SINGH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, B/C MEGHWAL (SC), R/O VILLAGE & POST BHOBIA, TEHSIL CHIRAWA, DISTRICT JHUNJHUNU.
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM- MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A (57) RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
PROFORMA RESPONDENTS :-
3. JOGENDRA SINGH S/O SHRI RAM KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 32 YERS, BY CASTE JAT (SC) R/O VILLAGE POST KALRI TEHSIL RAJGARH, DISTRICT CHURU.
4. SHARWAN KUMAR S/O CHHOTE LAL, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, BY CASTE JAT (SC) R/O VILLAGE & POST GOTHARA BHUKARAN, TEHSIL & DISTRICT SIKAR.
59. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.270/2013 APPELLANT :-
HAFIZ KHAN S/O SHRI SABBIR KHAN, AGED 32 YEARS, R/O V & P TIGRIYA POST VIA ETTWA BHOPJI, TEHSIL CHOMU- 303804, DISTT. JAIPUR (HAVING ROLL NO.33714).
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
PROFORMA RESPONDENTS :-
3. RAMESH CHAND S/O SH. HUKAM SINGH, AGED 32 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE PIRAKA, POST KHAKHAWALI, TEHSIL NAGAR, DISTRICT BHARATPUR (HAVING ROLL NO.27648).
4. DHANNA RAM S/O SRI CHAND SAINI, V & P KHADRA, TEHSIL NEEM KA THANA, DISTRICT SIKAR.
5. JHABER SINGH SUNDA S/O MANGLA RAM SUNDA, KARANPURA, POST KHUD, DISTT. SIKAR.
60. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.271/2013 APPELLANT :-
1. MURARI LAL NIMESH S/O SHRI GHAMANDI NIMESH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, BY CASTE NIMESH, R/O GRAM KHORI, POST SUHAS, TEHSIL WAIR, DISTRICT BHARATPUR (RAJ.) (GEN. ROLL NO.42938) CATEGORY S.C.
2. RAJVEER S/O SHRI DAMODAR LAL, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O MANITOLY, POST SAHANA, TEHSIL ROOPWAS, DISTRICT BHARATPUR (RAJ.) (ROLL NO.42937) CATEGORY S.C. V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HEAD OFFICE JAIPUR THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR.
SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A (58)
2. DEPUTY GENERAL (ADMINISTRATION) AND MEMBER SECRERTARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HEAD OFFICE JAIPUR (RAJ.). PROFORMA RESPONDENTS :-
3. MUKESH SINGH S/O SHRI LAL SINGH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O VPO DHANAUTA, TEHSIL & DISTT. BHARATPUR (RAJ. CATEGORY O.B.C.).
4. BUTA SINGH S/O SHRI JANJIR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O SANGHAR, TEHSIL SURATGARH, DISTRICT SHRI GANGANAGAR (RAJ.) CATEGORY GEN.
5. MANOJ KUMAR SONI S/O SHRI RATAN LAL, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O VPO LAKHOLA, VAYA GANGAPUR, DISTRICT BHILWARA (RAJ.) CATEGORY GEN.
6. MAHENDRA SINGH RATHORE S/O SHRI NARPAT SINGH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O P.NO. F-72, KANTA KHATURIYA COLONY, BIKANER (RAJ.) CATEGORY GENERAL.
7. TEJA RAM S/O SHRI MOTIRAM, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O INDRIRA NAGAR, WARD NO.29, BARMER (RAJ.) CATEGORY O.B.C.
61. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.3/2013 APPELLANT :-
SURAJ PRAKASH SONI S/O SRI GANPAT LAL SONI AGED 32 YEARS HOUSE NO.101, TAMBOLIYAN KI GALI, TILAK CHOWK, BUNDI (RAJASTHAN), (HAVING ROLL NO.34833).
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
3. DHANNA RAM S/O SRI CHAND SAINI, V & P KHADRA, TEHSIL NEEM KA THAN, DISTRICT SIKAR.
4. PARAS RAM JAT S/O NANU LAL JAT, VILLAGE SONDIFAL, POST BOKAHNDI KALA TEHSIL PIPLU DISTRICT TONK.
62. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.301/2013 APPELLANT :-
JAIDEV KAUSHIK S/O SHRI KRISHAN LAL KAUSHIK, AGED 35 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE SEELWANI, POST OFFICE MANAKSAR, TEHSIL SURATGARH, DISTRICT SRIGANGANAGAR (RAJ.).
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HEAD SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A (59) OFFICE, JAIPUR THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. DEPUTY GENERAL (ADMNN) AND MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HEAD OFFICE, JAIPUR.
63. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.302/2013 APPELLANTS :-
1) TRIBHUWAN SINGH RATHORE S/O PREM SING RATHORE, AGED 33 YEARS, R/O RANISARBAS, BEHIND KOTHI NO.45, BIKANER (HAVING ROLL NO.21346)
2) KANWAR PAL SINGH S/O HOSHIYAR SINGH, AGED 29 YEARS, R/O KANTA KATHURIA COLONY, NEAR SHIV BARI ROAD, BIKANER (HAVING ROLL NO.21385).
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
3. SHIV PAL SINGH RAJAWAT, HAVING ROLL NO.31852, THROUGH MEMBER SECRERTARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
4. JITENDRA PAL SINGH, HAVING ROLL NO.23373 THROUGH MEMBER SECRERTARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
PROFORMA RESPONDENT :-
5. BABU SINGH S/O BHOAM SINGH, AGED 26 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE BHIMSAGAR, POST SAMRAO, TEHSIL OSILA, DISTT JODHPUR (HAVING ROLL NO.57147)
6. RAVI SHANKAR SHARMA S/O SH. BALRAM SHARMA, AGED 27 YEARS, R/O DELHI DARWAJA BAHAR, NEAR UNIQUE PUBLIC SCHOOL, ALWAR (HAVING ROLL NO.51022).
64. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.303/2013 APPELLANTS :-
1) HARENDRA SINGH S/O SHRI BADAN SINGH, AGED 25 YEARS, R/O V & P SOOPA, TEHSIL BAYANA, DISTT. BHARATPUR (ROLL NO.43189)
2) PREM CHAND JAT S/O SHRI BADRI PRASAD JAT R/O VILLAGE NANGLE BAS GUMAN POST BHANOKAR TEHSIL LAXMANGARH DISTRICT ALWAR (ROLL NO.47453).
SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A (60) V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
3. DHANNA RAM S/O SRI CHAND SAINI, V & P KHADRA, TEHSIL NEEM KA THANA, DISTRICT SIKAR.
4. JHABER SINGH SUNDA S/O MANGLA RAM SUNDA, KARANPURA, POST KHUD, DISTT. SIKAR.
PROFORMA RESPONDENTS :-
5. CHANDRA BHAN S/O SHRI BIPATI RAM, AGED 27 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE PURABAIKHEDA, TEHSIL BAYANA, DISTT. BHARATPUR (ROLL NO.436106).
6. KAILASH CHAND CHOUDHARY S/O BAJRANG LAL JAT R/O VILLAGE GOTHRA POST JAKHARA TEHSIL BASSI DISTRICT JAIPUR (ROL LNO.38621).
65. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.305/2013 APPELLANT :-
RAMCHANRA SINGH SUNDA S/O SHRI RAM KARAN SINGH SUNDA, AGED 31 YEARS, R/O SHIEJIVAS, TEHSIL LAXMANGARH, DISTRICT SIKAR (RAJ.).
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
3. DHANNA RAM S/O SRI CHAND SAINI, V & P KHADRA, TEHSIL NEEM KA THANA, DISTRICT SIKAR.
4. JHABER SINGH SUNDA S/O MANGLA RAM SUNDA, KARANPURA, POST KHUD, DISTT. SIKAR.
PROFORMA RESPONDENT :-
RAJ KUMAR ACHARYA S/O SHRI RAM GOPAL ACHARYA, AGED 30 YEARS, R/O KHADERA TEHSIL KEKRI, DISTT. AJMER (HAVING ROLL NO.24703).
66. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.308/2013 APPELLANT :-
DEVA RAM S/O SHRI SONA RAM, AGED ABOUT 29 YRS., R/O PLOT NOT NO.504, INDRA NAGAR, DISTRICT BARMER SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A (61) (RAJASTHAN).
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. DEPUTY GENERAL (ADMINISTRATION) AND MEMBER SECRETARY SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR. PROFORM RESPONDENT :-
3. HARBANS SINGH S/O SHRI KAKA SINGH, AGED ABT 29 YRS R/O KHELIYAN, TEHSIL PILIBANGA DISTT HANUMANGARH (RAJ.)
67. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.323/2014 APPELLANT :-
RAMESH CHAND YADAV S/O JAGDISH PRASAD YADAV AGED ABOUT 33 YRS., R/O OF VILLAGE SHAHIPUR, POST GOONTA, TEHSIL BANSOOR, DISTRICT ALWAR (RAJASTHAN) V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. DY. MANAGING DIRECTOR (ADMN.), RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
3. MEMBER SECRETARY SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
PROFORMA RESPONDENT :-
4. RANVIR SINGH YADAV S/O SHRI RAJARAM YADAV AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE AND POST GUNTA, TEHSIL BANSOOR, DISTRICT ALWAR (RAJASTHAN)
68. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.327/2014 APPELLANT :-
KADURAM MEENA S/O SHRI RAJENDRA PRASAD MEENA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE & POST SAMLETI, TEHSIL MAHWA, DISTT. DAUSA.
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A (62) MARG, JAIPUR.
69. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.328/2014 APPELLANT :-
DEEWAN SINGH S/O SHRI BODAN SINGH, AGED 26 YEARS, R/O VPO BAROLI CHAR, TEHSIL NADBAI & DISTT. BHARATPUR (HAVING ROLL NO.37885) V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THROUGH IT'S CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRERTARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
3. DHANNA RAM S/O SHRI CHAND SAINI V&P KHADRA, TEHSIL NEEM KA THANA, DISTRICT SIKAR.
4. JHABER SINGH SUNDA S/O MANGLA RAM SUNDA, KARANPURA, POST KHUD, DISST. SIKAR.
5. PHS CONSULTANTS PVT. LIMITED THROUGH ITS SR.
CONSULTANT, C-9, SOUTH EXTENSION, PART-II, NEW DELHI- 110049.
70. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.329/2014 APPELLANT :-
KAPTAN SINGH S/O SHRI CHITTAR SINGH, AGED 27 YEARS R/O VPO BAROLI CHAR, TEHSIL NADBAI & DISTT. BHARATPUR (HAVING ROLL NO.37885) V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH IT'S CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION COMMISSION, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
3. DHANNA RAM S/O SHRI CHAND SAINI V&P KHADRA, TEHSIL NEEM KA THANA, DISTRICT SIKAR.
4. JHABER SINGH SUNDA S/O MANGLA RAM SUNDA, KARANPURA, POST KHUD, DISTT. SIKAR.
71. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.333/2013 APPELLANT :-
TEJA RAM S/O SHRI MOTI RAM, AGED ABOUT 33 YRS., R/O WARD NO.29, INDRA NAGAR, DISTRICT BARMER, (RAJASTHAN).
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A (63)
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. DEPUTY GENERAL (ADMINISTRATION) AND MEMBER SECRETARY SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR. PROFORMA RESPONDENTS :-
3. MUKESH SINGH S/O SHRI LAL SINGH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O V.P.O. DHANAUTA, TEHSIL & DISTRICT BHARATPUR (RAJ.).
4. BUTA SINGH S/O SHRI JANGIR SINGH, AGED 32 YEARS, R/O SANGHAR, TEHSIL SURATGARH, DISTRICT SHRI GANGANAGAR (RAJ.).
5. MANOJ KUMAR SONI S/O SHRI RATAN LAL, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O V.P.O. LAKHOLA, VAYA GANGAPUR, DISTT BHILWARA (RAJ.)
6. MAHENDRA SINGH RATHORE S/O NARPAT SINGH, AGED ABOUT 33 YRS., R/O PLOT NO.F-72, KANTA KHATURIYA, BIKANER (RAJ.).
7. MURARI LAL NIMESH S/O SHRI GHAMMANDI NIMESH, AGED 41 YEARS, R/O GRAM KHORI, POST SUHAS, TEHSIL WEIR, DISTRICT BHARATPUR (RAJ.).
8. RAJVEER S/O SHRI DAMODAR LAL, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O MANTOLY, POST SASANA, TEHSIL ROOPWAS, DISTRICT BHARATPUR (RAJ.).
72. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.380/2013 APPELLANT :-
DEVENDRA SINGH S/O SHRI RAMESHWAR PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE & POST GOTHARA BHUKRAN, VIA KUDHAN DISTT. SIKAR. (RAJ.) (HAVING ROLL NO.17377).
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
3. DHANNA RAM S/O SRI CHAND SAINI, V & P KHADRA, TEHSIL NEEM KA THANA, DISTRICT SIKAR.
4. PARAS RAM JAT S/O NANU LAL JAT, VILLAGE SONDIFAL, POST BOKAHNDI KALA TEHSIL PIPLU DISTRICT TONK. PROFORMA RESPONDENT :-
5. RAJ KUMAR ACHARYA S/O SHRI RAM GOPAL ACAHRYA, AGED SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A (64) 30 YEARS, R/O KHADERA TEHSIL KEKRI, DISTT. AJMER (HAVING ROLL NO.24703).
73. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.381/2013 APPELLANTS :-
1. RAVINDRA S/O SHRI HARI SINGH JAT, AGED 30 YEARS, R/O V & P BHADWADI, VIA KATHRATAL, DISTT. SIKAR (ROLL NO.17358).
2. MANOJ KUMAR KHINCHI S/O SHANTA LAL KHINCHI R/O NEAR SHAVARDIYA PUBLIC SCHOOL, PPRALI ROAD, SIKAR.
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (ADMINISTRATION) AND MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR. PROFORMA RESPONDENTS :-
3. BRAJ SUNDER S/O SHRI ARJUN SINGH BY CASTE JAT AGED 27 YEARS, R/O V & P DADLA, VIA KATHRATAL, DISTT. SIKAR.
4. VINOD KUMAR SHARMA S/O SHRI NARAIN LAL SHARMA R/O MUKAM & POST SAHPURA VIA SHIOT BARI DIST. SIKAR.
74. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.382/2013 APPELLANT :-
KRISHAN KUMAR PARIK S/O ASHOK KUMAR PARIK, AGED 23 YEARS, R/O 196, KISHANGARH, AMBABARI, JAIPUR (RAJ.) (HAVING ROLL NO.55730).
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
3. JAI KUMAR JOSHI, S/O SH. VIJAY KUMAR JOSHI, R/O VILLAGE SIKANDARA, TEHSIL SIKRAI, DISTT. DAUSA (HAVING ROLL NO.29225)
4. NANHE SINGH RAJPUT, S/O BHERU SINGH, R/O VILLAGE KIKASAR, POST SONPALSAR, TEHSIL SARDARSAHAR, DISTT. CHURU (HAVING ROLL NO.70039).
5. JITENDRA SHARMA S/O SH. PREM NARAIN SHARMA, R/O OUTSIDE DELHI GATE, MEENA PADI, ALWAR (HAVING ROLL SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A (65) NO.46780).
75. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.383/2013 APPELLANT :-
PHOOL SINGH YADAV S/O SHRI BALRAM YADAV, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O SAHAJAPURA, POST KHEDALI, TEHSIL KATHOOMER, TEHSIL ALWAR (RAJ.) (HAVING ROLL NO.14641).
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
3. DHANNA RAM S/O SRI CHAND SAINI, V&P, KHADRA, TEHSIL NEEM KA THANA, DISTRICT SIKAR.
4. JHABER SINGH SUNDA S/O MANGLA RAM SUNDA, KARANPURA, POST KHUD, DISTT. SIKAR.
76. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.386/2013 APPELLANT :-
VIRENDRA SINGH SON OF SHRI BHANWAR SINGH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDENT OF SURYA NAGAR COLONYU, WARD NO.25, HANUMANGARH TOWN DISTRICT HANUMANGARH (HAVING ROLL NO.17210).
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRERTARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
77. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.388/2013 APPELLANT :-
SOMVEER S/O SHRI LEELA DHAR, AGED 33 YEARS, VILLAGE BISANPURA, POST CHITOSA, DISTT. JHUNJHUNU (HAVING ROLL NO.59272) V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A (66) MARG, JAIPUR.
3. JITENDRA PAL SINGH HAVING ROLL NO.23373 THROUGH MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
4. NANHE SINGH RAJPUT HAVING ROLL NO.70039 THROUGH MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
78. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.389/2013 APPELLANT :-
1) AJAY PAL S/O SHRI DHARAMPAL, AGED 30 YEARS, R/O V&P MACHAL, TEHSIL BEHROD, DISTT. ALWQAR (HAVING ROLL NO.46897)
2) MAHESH CHAND S/O LAXMI CHAND, AGED 31 YEARS, R/O RIICO ROAD, RAILWAY PHATAK NO.3 KE PASS, BHARATPUR (HAVING ROLL NO.51577).
3) PRAVEEN KUMAR S/O PARMANAND, AGED 28 YEARS, R/O V&P BESSU, TEHSIL NAGAR, DISTT. BHARATPUR (HAVING ROLL NO.46901)
4) RUPENDRA SINGH S/O DASHRATH SINGH, AGED 23½ YEARS, R/O RATHORE BHAWAN NEAR AGARWAL KIRANA STORE, RAJAREDI, MANDANGANJ, KISHANGARH (AJMER) (HAVING ROLL NO.25409).
5) KAILASH CHAND MEENA S/O GAINDA RAM MEENA, AGED 28 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE JUGALPURA, POST SANWALPURA, TEHSIL NEEM KA THANA, DISTT. SIKAR (HAVING ROLL NO.84359).
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
3. RATAN LAL, HAVING ROLL NO.10319, THROUGH MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
4. RAMAVTAR JATAV, HAVING ROLL NO.25516 THROUGH MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
79. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.390/2013 APPELLANT :-
UMESH KUMAR YADAV S/O SHRI LAL SINGH YADAV, AGED 35 SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A (67) YEARS, VILL. MUNDIAKHEDA, POST RAJWADA, TEHSIL MUNDAWAR DISTT. ALWAR (HAVING ROLL NO.47383).
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
3. DHANNA RAM S/O SRI CHAND SAINI, V&P KHADRA, TEHSIL NEEM KA THANA, DISTRICT SIKAR.
4. JHABER SINGH SUNDA S/O MANGLA RAM SUNDA, KARANPURA, POST KHUD, DISTT. SIKAR.
80. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.391/2013 APPELLANT :-
SHRI ARUN JAIN S/O SH. PURAN CHAND JAIN AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/O VARDHAN NAGAR HINDAUN CITY DISTRICT KARAULI (RAJ.) (HAVING ROLL NO.44548).
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
3. JAI KUMAR JOSHI, S/O SH. RAM MILAN KUMAR JOSHI, R/O VILLAGE SIKANDARA, TEHSIL SIKRAI, DISTT. DAUSA (HAVING ROLL NO.29225).
4. RAM KISHAN SHARMA S/O RAMSWAROOP R/O SODIYA MOHALLA NEAR PULIA, VILLAGE BASWA, DISTT. DAUSA (RAJ.) (ROLL NO.31851)
5. PHS CONSULTANTS PVT. LIMITED THROUGH ITS SR.
CONSULTANT, C-9 SOUTH EXTENSION, PART-II, NEW DELHI- 110049.
81. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.392/2013 APPELLANT :-
SHRAWAN KUMAR S/O SHRI RAMESHWAR LAL, AGED 27 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE KISHAN PURA, POST SISHYU, TEHSIL RANOLI, SIKAR (RAJ.) (HAVING ROLL NO.17315).
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A (68) ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
3. DHANNA RAM S/O SRI CHAND SAINI, V & P KHADRA, TEHSIL NEEM KA THANA, DISTRICT SIKAR.
4. JHABER SINGH SUNDA S/O MANGLA RAM SUNDA, KARANPURA, POST KHUD, DISTT. SIKAR.
PROFORMA RESPONDENT :-
5. RAJ KUMAR ACHARYA S/O SHRI RAM GOPAL ACHARYA, AGED 30 YEARS, R/O KHADERA TEHSIL KEKRI, DISTT. AJMER (HAVING ROLL NO.24703).
82. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.393/2013 APPELLANT :-
GIRRAJ PRASAD SHARMA S/O SURAJ MAL SHARMA, AGE-29 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE - CHAVAND KA MAND, POST SAYAPURA, TEHSIL - JAMVA RAM GARH, DISTT.-JAIPUR (HAVING ROLL NO.40246).
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIRPUR.
3. JAI KUMAR JOSHI S/O SH. VIJAY KUMAR JOSHI, R/O VILLAGE SIKANDARA, TEHSIL SIKRAI, DISTT. DAUSA (HAVING ROLL NO.29225).
4. NANHE SINGH RAJPUT, S/O BHERU SINGH, R/O VILLAGE KIKASAR, POST SONPALSAR, TEHSIL SARDARSAHAR, DISTT.
CHURU (HAVING ROLL NO.70039) PROFORMA RESPONDENT :-
VIRENDER SINGH KHANGAROT S/O SH. MADAN SINGH KHANGAROT, AGED 30 YEARS, R/O V&P LADERA TEHSIL-DUDU, DISTT. JAIPUR (HAVING ROLL NO.24474)
83. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.4/2013 APPELLANT :-
KAPOOR KUMAR CHANDERA S/O SH. KISHORE LAL CHANDERA, AGED 35 YEARS, R/O V & P BHANKARI, DISTT. DAUSA (HAVING ROLL NO.37787).
V E R S U S SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A (69) RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
3. MAHESH KUMAR GANGWAL S/O GOVERDHAN GANGWAL, R/O REENGUS ROAD, HANUMANJI KA RASTA, CHOMU, DISTT. JAIPUR.
4. DAMODAR LAL S/O DUDA RAM, R/O V & P DADRU, TEHSIL FATEHPUR, DISTT. SIKAR.
84. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.413/2014 APPELLANT :-
RAJARAM S/O SHRI RATIRAM, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-BILOCHAWALI, TEHSIL PILLIBANGA, DISTRICT - HANUMANGARH (RAJ.) V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. DEPUTY GENERAL (ADMN.) AND MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HEAD OFFICE, JAIPUR.
85. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.417/2013 APPELLANT :-
KAYAM SINGH NARUKA S/O SHRI GOPAL SINGH NARUKA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, B/C RAJPUT (GEN.), RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & POST KADEDA, TEHSIL CHAKSU, DISTRICT JAIPUR.
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
86. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.434/2013 APPELANT :-
AMIT KUMAR TANK S/O KAILASH CHAND TANK, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, B/C DARJI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & POST KADEDA, TEHSIL CHAKSU, DISTRICT JAIPUR.
V E R S U S
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A (70) THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
87. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.437/2013 APPELLANTS :-
1. RAJVEER S/O MAHAVEER SINGH, B/C JAT, AGED 31 YEARS, RESIDENT OF KISARI, POST BAHADURWAS, VIA MANDAWARA, DISTT. JHUNJHUNU.
2. PRADEEP KUMAR S/O MAHAVEER PRASAD, B/C JAT, AGED 28 YEARS, R/O OF BAHADURWAS, VIA MANDAWARA, DISTT.
JHUNJHUNU.
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HEAD QUARTER JAIPUR, THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. RAJASTHAN STATE ROADWAYS TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HEADQUARTERS THROUGH MEMBER SECRETARY.
3. RAJASTHAN STATE ROADWAYS TRANSPORT CORPORATION, DEPOT. SIKAR, DISTT. SIKAR THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER.
4. RAJASTHAN STATE ROADWAYS TRANSPORT CORPORATION DEPOT. JHUNJHUNU, THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER.
PROFORMA RESPONDENT :-
MADANLAL S/O PANNA RAM, B/C JAT, AGED 30 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VPO BHIRANA, VIA LOSAL, DISTT. SIKAR.
88. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.447/2013 APPELLANT :-
SUNIL KUMAR S/O SHRI SURAJBHAN, BY CASTE O.B.C., AGED ABOUT 25 YRS., R/O VILLAGE & POST-KHORA, VIA-BAI, TEHSIL DATARAMGARH DISTRICT SIKAR (RAJASTHAN) V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. THE CHIEF MANAGER, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN).
3. MEMBER SECRETARY SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
PROFORMA RESPONDENT:-
4. DHEERAJ KUMAR SHARMA S/O BABULAL SHARMA, R/O VILLAGE POST ACHALPURA, TEHSIL SIKRAI, DISTT. DAUSA SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A (71) (RAJASTHAN)
89. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.464/2014 APPELLANT :-
SURESH CHAND SHARMA S/O SHRI RADHEY SHYAM SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/O KESARIYA KA NAGLA, TEHSIL KATHUMAR, DISTT. ALWAR.
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
90. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.473/2013 APPELLANT :-
RAJ KUMAR YADAV S/O SHRI VIRENDRA SINGH AGED ABOUT 21 YEAR R/O V+P KAYASA, TEHSIL BEHROR, DISTRICT ALWAR, RAJASTHAN (HAVING ROLL NO 53140) V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIWAHAN MARG, C- SCHEME, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION HEAD OFFICE, PARIWAHAN MARG, C-SCHEME, JAIPUR.
3. DHANNA RAM S/O SHRI CHAND SAINI VILLAGE & POST KHADRA TEHSIL NEEM KA THANA DISTRICT SIKAR RAJ
4. JHABER SINGH SUNDA S/O MANGLA RAM SUNDA KARAN PURA POST KHUD DISTRICT SIKAR PROFORMA RESPONDNETS :-
5. SATPAL SINGH S/O SHRI MAHARAJ SINGH YADAV AGED ABOUTE 30 YEARS R/O VILL NAGLA CHURAMAN POST LUDHAVAI TEHSHIL & DISTRICT BHARATPUR (HAVING ROLL NO 43085)
6. BABU LAL PRAJAPAT S/O RAM KISHAN PRAJAPAT AGED 29 YEARS VILL TELEWALA POST GHARI SAWAI RAM TEHSIL RAJGARH DISTRICT ALWAR (HAVING ROLL NO.47234).
91. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.475/2013 APPELLANT :-
1. CHOTU RAM S/O SHRI JEWTA RAM MUKAM, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O VIA NIBHAZ, TEHSIL JAITARAN, DISTRICT PALI (RAJ.).
2. VIJAY RAMAWAT S/O SHRI BHANWAR LAL, AGED ABOUT 23 SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A (72) YEARS, R/O 2/557, KUDI BHAGTASANI HOUSING BOARD, BASNI I PHASE JODHPUR (RAJ.) V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE, JAIPUR.
2. DEPUTY GENERAL (ADMINISTRATION) AND MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HEAD OFFICE, JAIPUR.
92. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.480/2013 APPELLANT :-
PRADEEP KUMAR YADAV S/O SHRI RAM SINGH YADAV BY CAST AHIR AGE ABOUT 28 YEAR R/O VILLAGE DAWANI, POST BUDHAWAL, TEHSIL BEHROR DISTRICT ALWAR, RAJASTHAN (HAVING ROLL NO. 33164) V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIWAHAN MARG, C- SCHEME, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION HEAD OFFICE, PARIWAHAN MARG, C-SCHEME, JAIPUR.
3. DHANNA RAM S/O SHRI CHAND SAINI VILLAGE & POST KHADRA TEHSIL NEEM KA THANA DISTRICT SIKAR RAJ
4. JHABER SINGH SUNDA S/O MANGLA RAM SUNDA KARAN PURA POST KHUD DISTRICT SIKAR PROFORMA RESPONDENT :-
ANOOP CHAND S/O SHRI HANUMAN RAM BY CAST VISHNOI GED ABOUTE 30 YEARS R/O V+P JAYAL DISTRICT NAGAUR (HAVING ROLL NO 28504)
93. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.493/2013 APPELLANT :-
RAM RAJ MEENA S/O SHRI KANCHAN MEENA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE & POST GOTHRA, TEHSIL SAPOTRA, DISTRICT KARAULI (RAJASTHAN).
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A (73) MARG, JAIPUR.
3. KAILASH CHAND MEENA (HAVING ROLL NO.38425) THROUGH MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
4. HARI NARAIN MEENA (HAVING ROLL NO.56281) THROUGH MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
94. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.5/2013 APPELLANT :-
CHHOTU LAL MEENA S/O SHRI BABU RAM MEENA, AGED 27 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE NAYATILA, POST BORKHADI KALA, TEHSIL PIPLU, DISTT. TONK (RAJ.) (HAVING ROLL NO.58418).
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
3. HARI NARAIN MEENA HAVING ROLL NO.56281, THROUGH MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
4. KRISHAN KUMAR MEENA, HAVING ROLL NO.17281 THROUGH MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
95. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.505/2013 APPELLANT :-
RAJENDRA SINGH S/O SHRI BIRBAL RAM, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, BY-CASTE JAT (OBC) RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BIBIPUR, POST, SHERDA, TEHSIL BHADRA, DISTRICT HANUMANGARH.
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A (74)
96. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.509/2013 APPELLANT :-
MANOJ KUMAR SAINI S/O SHRI CHHOGA LAL, AGED AROUND 35 YEARS, BY CASTE SAINI, RESIDENT OF VPO PRATAPURA, KHANRIDI, VIA LOSAL, DISTRICT SIKAR (RAJ.) V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION. HEAD QUARTER JAIPUR, THROUGH IT'S MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION. HEAD QUARTERS THROUGH MEMBER SECRETARY.
3. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, DEPOT SIKAR, DIST. SIKAR THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER.
97. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.537/2014 APPELLANT :-
PRADEEP KUMAR S/O BEERBAL RAM, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O TEHSIL KOLINDA DISTRICT JHUNJHUNU.
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR HEAD OFFICE, JAIPUR.
2. DEPUTY GENERAL (ADMINISTRATION) AND MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HEAD OFFICE, JAIPUR.
98. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.54/2013 APPELLANT :-
JAGMOHAN S/O SHRI SUKHDAS, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O VPO DHANOTA, TEHSIL & DISTRICT BHARATPUR (HAVING ROLL NO.43302).
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
3. DHANNA RAM S/O SRI CHAND SAINI, V & P KHADRA, TEHSIL NEEM KA THANA, DISTRICT SIKAR.
4. JHABER SINGH SUNDA S/O MANGLA RAM SUNDA, KARANPURA, POST KHUD., DISTT. SIKAR.
5. PHS CONSULTANTS PVT. LIMITED THROUGH ITS SR.
CONSULTANT, C-9, SOUTH EXTENSION, PART-II, NEW DELHI-
SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A (75) 110049.
99. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.547/2013 APPELLANTS :-
1. RAVI SHANKAR SHARMA S/O SHRI DURGA LAL, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O SEVAGO KA MOHALLA, POST KUCHER, DISTT NAGOUR (RAJASTHAN).
2. MANOJ KUMAR S/O SHIR KISHAN LAL AGED ABT 27 YRS., R/O VILLAGE & POST LUNSARA VIA KUCHER TEHSIL JAYAL, DISTT NAGOUR (RAJASTHAN) V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CHOMU HOUSE, JAIPUR
2. RAGHUVIR SINGH SISODIYA S/O BHANWAR SINGH SISODIYA, AGED ABOUT 24 YRS, R/O RAJPUT COLONY, NEAR BADA BAZAR, KUCHER, THE. KUCHER, POST KUCHER, DISTT. NAGOUR.
100. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.567/2014 APPELLANT :-
KISHOR KUMAR S/O SHRI CHETARAM NAI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE CHATARPURA, POST-DURANA, DISTRICT- JHUNJHUNU (RAJ.) V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION HEAD OFFICE JAIPUR THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (ADMINISTRATION) AND MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HEAD OFFICE, JAIPUR.
101. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.573/2014 APPELLANT :-
VIJENDRA SINGH S/O SHRI SHRI DARIYA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS BY CASTE JAT, R/O WARD NO.1, RAJGARH ROAD, PILANI, DISTRICT-JHUNJHUNU (RAJ.) V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE, JAIPUR.
2. THE MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
102. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.581/2013 APPELLANT :-
SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A (76) SUNIL SINGH S/O SHRI BABU SINGH AGED ABT 26 YRS, CASTE OBC, R/O VILLAGE MOHANPURA, TEHSIL BASSI, DISTRICT- JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN).
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. THE CHIEF MANAGER, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN).
3. MEMBER SECRETARY SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
4. RAJESH S/O BHIKHA RAM, R/O ROTU, TEHSIL JAYAL, DISTRICT NAGOUR, RAJASTHAN.
103. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.587/2013 APPELLANT :-
SUJA RAM GURJAR S/O RAMJI LAL GURJAR AGED ABOUT 28 YRS CASTE GURJAR, R/O VILLAGE DHAUPURA POST RUPWAS TEHSIL JAMVARAMGARH, DISTRICT JAIPUR, (RAJASTHAN) V E R S U S
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
104. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.6/2013 APPELLANT :-
1) AMIT KUMAR MEENA S/O SHRI GOKUL MEENA, AGED 24 YEARS, R/O CHAINPUR, POST SAHAIPURA, TEHSIL JAMWA RAMGARH, JAIPUR (HAVING ROLL NO.38546).
2) GANPAT SINGH S/O SHRI UMRAO SINGH, AGED 24 YEARS, R/O V & P JATPUR, TEHSIL RAMGARH, DISTT. ALWAR (HAVING ROLL NO.51194).
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
3. JITENDRA PAL SINGH HAVING ROLL NO.23373 THROUGH SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A (77) MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
4. NANHE SINGH RAJPUT HAVING ROLL NO.70039 THROUGH MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
105. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.639/2014 APPELLANT :-
GUPTESH MEENA S/O SHRI SHIV LAL MEENA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/O VILLAGE JODHPUR, TEHSIL - TODABHIM, DISTT. KAROULI. (RAJ.) V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
106. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.647/2014 APPELLANT :-
1. CHANDRA PRAKASH SHARMA S/O SHRI DWARIKA PRASAD SHARMA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE-GUNESHRI, POST-GUNESARA, TEHSIL-KAROULI, DISTT. KAROULI (RAJ.)
2. SURESH KUMAR SHARMA S/O DULLI CHAND SHARMA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE & POST AKBARPUR, DISTRICT-
ALWAR (RAJ.).
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
3. SATISH KUMAR SHARMA S/O BHAGWAN SAHAY SHARMA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/O VILLAGE-KOLANA BASWA, DISTRICT DAUSA (RAJ.)
4. PAWAN KUMAR GUPTA S/O RAMJI LAL GUPTA R/O VILL. GUNESHARI TEH. & DIST. KARAULI.
5. OM SINGHAL S/O NEMI CHAND SINGHAL R/O VILL.51 KHANIYA CHECK POST, C/O SAINT ROSE ACADEMY SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, AGRA ROAD JAIPUR (RAJ.) SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A (78)
107. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.658/2013 APPELLANT :-
ARVIND SINGH S/O SHRI JANAK SINGH AGED 312 YEARS R/O VILLAGE JAMALPURA, TEHSIL & DISTRICT ALWAR (HAVING ROLL NO.46866) V E R S U S
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
3. JITENDRA PAL SINGH HAVING ROLL NO.23373 THROUGH MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
4. NANHE SINGH RAJPUT HAVING ROLL NO.70039 THROUGH MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
PROFORMA RESPONDENTS :-
5. RAKESH KUMAR S/O SHRI JAGDISH, AGED 31 YEARS, R/O CHAK 4-5, R W B, MASITAWALI, TEHSIL TIBBI, DISTT. HANUMANGARH (HAVING ROLL NO.23187)
6. RAJENDRA KUMAR S/O SHRI BUDDHA RAM, AGED 26 YEARS, R/O V & P BASHIR, TEHSIL TIBBI, DISTT. HANUMANGARH (HAVING ROLL NO.23228)
7. SWAROOP SINGH S/O SH. NARAIN SINGH, AGED 29 YEARS, R/O PANCHLA SIDHA, TEHSIL KHINWSAR, DISTT. NAGAUR (HAVING ROLL NO.11015).
108. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.662/2013 APPELLANT :-
KISHAN LAL BAIRWA S/O SHRI CHITAR RAM, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE AVANDIYA CHAKAWARA, TEHSIL PHAGI, DISTT. JAIPUR (RAJ.) V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
PROFORMA RESPONDENT :-
SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A (79)
3. DEVDHAN MEENA S/O SHRI GOPAL LAL MEENA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE NATATA, DHANI DARBANO KI, TEHSIL JAMWARAMGARH, VIA AMER, DISTT. JAIPUR.
109. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.664/2013 APPELLANT :-
NARAYAN DAN S/O SHRI UDAI DAN CHARAN, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE BEH CHARAN, POST KHETSAR, TEHSIL OCEAN, DISTRICT JODHPUR (RAJ.) (HAVING ROLL NO.12117).
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
3. DHANNA RAM S/O SRI CHAND SAINI, V&P KHADRA, TEHSIL NEEM KA THANA, DISTRICT SIKAR.
4. JHABER SINGH SUNDA S/O MANGLA RAM SUNDA, KARANPURA, POST KHUD, DISTT. SIKAR.
110. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.67/2013 APPELLANT :-
1. SHANKAR LAL JAT S/O SHRI NATHU LAL JAT AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, ROLL NO.31628
2. MINTU JAT S/O SHRI NATHU LAL JAT AGED 21 YEARS, ROLL NO.55535 RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AASPURA POST SHAHPURAKALAN POLICE STATION SHAHPURA DISTRICT JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN).
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, CHOMU HOUSE, JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN).
2. SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HEAD OFFICE PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR THROUGH MEMBER SECRETARY.
111. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.69/2013 APPELLANTS :-
1. PREETAM SINGH, S/O NAHAR SINGH, B/C JAT, AGED 25 YEARS, R/O BAHADURWAS, VIA MANDAWARA, DISTT.- JHUNJHUNU.
2. SURESH KUMAR S/O KHURDA RAM, B/C JAT, AGED 26 YEARS, R/O BHADURWAS, VIA MANDAWARA, DISTT. JHUNJHUNU.
3. VIRENDRA SINGH MANTH S/O RATTANLAL MANTH, B/C SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A (80) MANTH, AGE 28 R/O KARI, VIA JAKHAL, DISTT. JHUNJHUNU.
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HEAD QUARTERS JAIPUR, THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. RAJASTHAN STATE ROADWAYS TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HEAD QUARTERS THROUGH MEMBER SECRERTARY.
3. RAJASTHAN STATE ROADWAYS TRANSPORT CORPORATION, DEPOT SIKAR, DISTT. SIKAR THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER.
4. RAJASTHAN STATE ROADWAYS TRANSPORT CORPORATION DEPOT JHUNJHUNU, THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER. PROFORMA RESPONDENT :-
5. RAJBEER SINGH S/O NEKI RAM, B/C SINGH, R/O BAHADURWAS, DISTT. JHUNJHUNU.
112. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.7/2013 APPELLANT :-
RAMESH CHAND S/O SH. HUKAM SINGH, AGED 32 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE PIRAKA, POST KHAKHAWALI, TEHSIL NAGAR, DISTRICT BHARATPUR (HAVING ROLL NO.27648).
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
3. DHANNA RAM S/O SRI CHAND SAINI, V&P KHADRA, TEHSIL NEEM KA THANA, DISTRICT SIKAR.
4. JHABER SINGH SUNDA S/O MANGLA RAM SUNDA, KARANPURA, POST KHUD. DISTT. SIKAR.
113. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.70/2013 APPELLANT :-
LAXMI KANT JAIN S/O SHRI NATHU LAL JAIN, AGED 34 YEARS, R/O V&P CHHAREDA, TEHSIL DAUSA, DISTT. DAUSA (HAVING ROLL NO.54239) V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A (81) RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
3. JAI KUMAR JOSHI, S/O SH. VIJAY KUMAR JOSHI, R/O VILLAGE SIKANDARA, TEHSIL SIKRAI, DISTT. DAUSA (HAVING ROLL NO.29225)
4. NANHE SINGH RAJPUT S/O BHERU SIINGH, R/O VILLAGE KIKASAR, POST SONPALSAR, TEHSIL SARDARSAHAR, DISTT. CHURU (HAVING ROLL NO.70039).
5. JITENDRA SHARMA S/O SH. PREM NARAIN SHARMA, R/O OUTSIDE DELHI GATE, MEENA PADI, ALWAR (HAVING ROLL NO.46780).
114. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.709/2013 APPELLANT :-
DEEPAK KUMAR S/O SHRI VIJAY SINGH, BY CASTE GURJAR, R/O PAHADTAL FARM, NAGAR ROAD, DEEG, DISTRICT BHARATPUR (RAJ.) (OBC).
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HEAD OFFICE JAIPUR THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. DEPUTY GENERAL (ADMINISTRATION) AND MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HEAD OFFICE, JAIPUR.
115. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.71/2013 APPELLANT :-
RAMESHWAR LAL S/O SHRI REMU RAM, AGED 296 YEARS, VILLAGE TASHER CHOTI, POST BADI, DISTT. SIKAR-332012 (HAVING ROLL NO.17515).
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
3. JITENDRA PAL SINGH HAVING ROLL NO.23373 THROUGH MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
4. NANHE SINGH RAJPUT HAVING ROLL NO.70039 THROUGH MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A (82) JAIPUR.
PROFORMA RESPONDENS :-
5. GAJEDNRA SINGH S/O SHRI JAGDISH SINGH JADON, AGED 31 YEARS, R/O BERUNDA, POST MASAWATA, TEHSIL SAPOTRA, DISTT. KARAULI (HAVING ROLL NO.39254)
116. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.713/2013 APPELLANT :-
MADAN LAL S/O SHRI TIKU RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BINJASI, TEHSIL SIKAR, DISTRICT SIKAR.
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. DY. GENERAL MANAGER (ADMINISTRATION) RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
117. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.72/2013 APPELLANT :-
1) ANOP CHAND S/O SHRI HANUMAN RAM BY CASTE VISHNOI AGED 30 YEARS R/O V&P JAYAL DISTT. NAGAUR (HAVING ROLL NO.28594).
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
3. DHANNA RAM S/O SRI CHAND SAINI, V&P KHADRA, TEHSIL NEEM KA THANA, DISTRICT SIKAR.
4. JHABER SINGH SUNDA S/O MANGLA RAM SUNDA, KARANPURA, POST KHUD, DISTT. SIKAR.
PROFORMA RESPONDENT :-
5. PRADEEP KUMAR YADAV S/O SHRI RAMSINGH YADAV, AGED 27 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE DAWANI POST BUDHAWAL TEHSIL BEHROR DISTT. (HAVING ROLL NO.33164)
118. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.722/2013 APPELLANT :-
KAILASH CHAND S/O SHRI SHISHUPAL SINGH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE DELSAR KALAN, VIA - DUMRA, TEHSIL - NAWALGARH, DISTRICT - JHUNJHUNU (RAJ.).
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A (83)
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE, JAIPUR.
2. THE MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
PROFORMA RESPONDENTS :-
3. GANESH KUMAR INANI SD/O SHRI KAILASH CHAND INANI, AGE-ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O V.P.O. GUDA NATHAVATAN, DISTT.-BUNDI (RAJ.) CATEGORY GEN.
4. GURU CHARAN SHARMA S/O SHRI VISHAN LAL, AGE ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O MUKAM POST PATAYARI KI DUNGARI, NEAR BUS STAND, RAJGARH, DISTT. ALWAR (RAJ.) CATEGORY GENERAL.
119. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.723/2013 APPELLANT :-
GANESH KUMAR INANI S/O SHRI KAILASH CHAND INANI, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDENT OF GRAM POST GUDHA NATHWATAN, BUNDI, RAJASTHAN.
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE, JAIPUR.
2. DEPUTY GENERAL (ADMINISTRATION) AND MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HEAD OFFICE, JAIPUR. PROFORMA RESPONDENTS :-
3. CHHOTU RAM S/O SHRI JEWTA RAM MUKAM, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O VIA NIBHAZ, TEHSIL JAITARAN, DISTRICT PALI (RAJ.).
4. VIJAY RAMAWAT S/O SHRI BHANWAR LAL, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/O 2/557, KUDI BHAGTASANI HOUSING BOARD, BASNI I PHASE JODHPUR.
5. GURU CHARAN SHARMA S/O SHRI VISHAN LAL, AGE ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O MUKAM POST PATAYARI KI DUNGARI, NEAR BUS STAND, RAJGARH, DISTT. ALWAR (RAJ.) CATEGORY GENERAL.
120. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.771/2013 APPELLANTS :-
1. NARENDRA KUMAR S/O RAMAVTAR, AGED 26 YEARS, B/C JAT (OBC), R/O VILLAGE CHELASI, TEHSIL NAWALGARH, DISTRICT JHUNJHUNU.
2. VED PRAKASH S/O BRAJ LAL YADAV, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, BY CASTE YADAV (OBC) R/O PRABHAT COLONY, SINGHANA, TEHSIL BUHANA, DISTRICT JHUNJHUNU.
SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A (84) V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM- MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
121. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.8/2013 APPELLANT :-
TEJ PRAKASH VERMA S/O MAWASI RAM VERMA, AGED 31 YEARS, R/O MOJPUR, TEHSIL LAXMANGARH, DISTT. ALWAR (HAVING ROLL NO.51046) V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
3. MAHESH KUMAR GANGWAL S/O GOVARDHAN GANGWAL R/O REENGUS ROAD, HANUMAN JI KA RASTA, CHOMU, DISTRICT JAIPUR.
122. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.834/2013 APPELLANT :-
OM PRAKASH S/O SHRI MOHAR SINGH AGE 35 YEARS R/O VILLAGE - KANAWASI, POST-BAJWA, TEHSIL-RAJGARH, DISTRICT-CHURU (RAJ.) V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE, JAIPUR.
2. THE MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
123. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.856/2013 APPELLANT :-
SUNIL KUMAR S/O PYARE LAL, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS BY CASTE JAT (OBC) R/O VILLAGE CHATARPURA, POST-DURANA, TEHSIL & DISTRICT-JHUNJHUNU (RAJASTHAN) V E R S U S SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A (85) RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE, JAIPUR.
2. THE MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
124. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.87/2013 APPELLANT :-
SHUBHAM KUMAR S/O SHRI SURESH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O C-63, INDIRA COLONY, HEERADAS, BHARATPUR (HAVING ROLL NO.52796).
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRERTARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
3. JAI KUMAR JOSHI S/O VIJAY KUMAR JOSHI, R/O VILLAGE SIKANDARA, TEHSIL SIKARAI, DISTRICT DAUSA (HAVING ROLL NO.29225).
4. JEETENDRA SHARMA S/O SH. PREM NARAIN SHARMA, R/O OUTSIDE DELHI GATE, MEENA PADI, ALWAR (HAVING ROLL NO.46780).
5. PHS CONSULTANTS PVT. LIMITED THROUGH ITS SR.
CONSULTANT, C-9, SOUTH EXTENSION, PART-II, NEW DELHI- 110049
125. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.9/2013 APPELLANT :-
HARISH CHAND S/O SH. BHAG CHAND BAIRWA, AGED 26 YEARS, R/O V&P SAMRAYA, TEHSIL VAIR, DISTT. BHARATPUR (HAVING ROLL NO.51571).
V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
3. MAHESH KUMAR GANGWAL S/O GOVARDHAN GANGWAL R/O REENGUS ROAD, HANUMAN JI KA RASTA, CHOMU, DISTRICT SAW-1396/12 & 126 COGNATE CASES AS PER APPENDED SCHEDULE-A (86) JAIPUR.
126. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) NO.92/2013 APPELLANT :-
PRAHLAD MEENA S/O SHRI RAM SINGH MEENA BY CAST MEENA AGE ABOUT 29 YEAR R/O 149 SHRI JI NAGAR DURGA TONK ROAD JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN) V E R S U S RESPONDENTS :-
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIWAHAN MARG, C- SCHEME, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION HEAD OFFICE, PARIWAHAN MARG, C-SCHEME, JAIPUR.
127. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT (SAW) No.319/2013 APPELLANT :-
MAN MOHAN SINGH S/O SHRI JAGDISH SINGH JADON, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, VILLAGE BERUNDA, POST MASAVTA, TEHSIL SAPOTRA, DISTT. KARAULI (RAJ.) (HAVING ROLL NO.39253) V E R S U S
1. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
3. JITENDRA PAL SINGH HAVING ROLL NO.23373 THROUGH MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
4. NANHE SINGH RAJPUT HAVING ROLL NO.70039 THROUGH MEMBER SECRETARY, SERVICE SELECTION BOARD, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN MARG, JAIPUR.
PROFORMA RESPONDENTS:-
5. MAHAVEER SINGH SON OF SHRI SURENDRA SINGH RAJAWAT, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE RAMPURA, POST- VANASTHALI, TEHSIL-NIWAI, TONK HAVING ROLL NO.39236.
6. RAKESH KUMAR SETHI SON OF SHRI DAULAT RAM, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O HOLI KI GALI, MANDAWAR ROAD, DISTT. DAUSA (RAJ.) HAVING ROLL NO.29275.
(Dinesh Chandra Somani),J. (Ajay Rastogi),J.