Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Parvinder Singh vs R S R T C And Anr on 9 November, 2011
Author: Mn Bhandari
Bench: Mn Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER 1.SB Civil Writ Petition No.13855/2011 Prem Prakash Sharma versus RSRTC & anr 2.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 14748/2011 Sita Ram Meena Versus RSRTC & anr 3.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 14749/2011 Jitendra Kumar & ors Versus RSRTC & ors 4.SB Civil Writ Petition No.14750/2011 Girish Kumar Sharma Versus RSRTC & anr 5.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15043/2011 Naresh Kumar Versus RSRTC & anr 6. SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15140/2011 Karan Singh Versus RSRTC & anr 7. SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15145/2011 Keshri Singh & anr Versus RSRTC & ors 8. SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15146/2011 Rajesh Kumar Sharma Versus RSRTC & ors 9.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15149/2011 Shishu Pal BishnoiVersus RSRTC & ors 10.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15153/2011 Dharam Pal Versus RSRTC & ors 11.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15186/2011 Veerbhan Singh & anr Versus RSRTC & anr 12.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15188/2011 Amit Kumar Sharma Versus RSRTC & ors 13.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15199/2011 Ravindra Kumar Versus RSRTC & ors 14.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15210/2011 Sunil Kumar Sharma & anr Versus RSRTC & ors 15. SB Civil Writ Petition No.15248 /2011 Norang Singh & anr Versus RSRTC & ors 16. SB Civil Writ Petition No. 14048/2011 Shyamlal Khatik & ors Versus RSRTC & anr 17. SB Civil Writ Petition No. 14334/2011 Girish Kumar Sharma Versus RSRTC & ors 18. SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15548/2011 Shishupal & ors Versus RSRTC & anr 19. SB Civil Writ Petition No. 14758/2011 Mukut Bihari & anr Versus RSRTC & anr 20. SB Civil Writ Petition No. 14616/2011 Rekh Singh Chahar & anr Versus RSRTC & anr 21. SB Civil Writ Petition No.15261/2011 Raj Kumar Sharma Versus RSRTC & anr 22.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15014/2011 Narendra Kumar Phenin Versus RSRTC & anr 23.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15510/2011 Jagdish Prasad Sharma & ors Versus RSRTC & anr 24. SB Civil Writ Petition No. 14595/2011 Sheesh Ram & ors Versus RSRTC & anr 25. SB Civil Writ Petition No.14444/2011 Satyapal Singh Versus RSRTC & anr 26.SB Civil Writ Petition No.15407/2011 Sriram Sharma Versus RSRTC & ors 27. SB Civil Writ Petition No.15442/2011 Brajmohan Jakhar Versus RSRTC & anr 28.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15441/2011 Vikram Versus RSRTC & anr 29.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15449/2011 Anand Pal Versus RSRTC & ors 30. SB Civil Writ Petition No.15567/2011 Damodar Lal Versus RSRTC & anr 31. SB Civil Writ Petition No.14307 /2011 Datar Singh & ors Versus RSRTC & anr 32.SB Civil Writ Petition No.15562/2011 Nanhe Singh Rajput & anr &Versus RSRTC & ors 33. SB Civil Writ Petition No.15561/2011 Hemraj Bansal & ors Versus RSRTC & anr 34. SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15563/2011 Rupendra Singh Versus RSRTC & anr 35. SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15564/2011 Vijay Kant Sharma Versus RSRTC & anr 36. SB Civil Writ Petition No.15570/2011 Vinod Kumar Sharma Versus RSRTC & ors 37. SB Civil Writ Petition No.15568/2011 Abhay Kumar Meena Versus RSRTC & anr 38. SB Civil Writ Petition No.15566/2011 Parvinder Singh Versus RSRTC & anr 39. SB Civil Writ Petition No.15565/2011 Anil Kumar Sharma & anr Versus RSRTC & anr 40. SB Civil Writ Petition No.15569/2011 Sunil Kumar Versus RSRTC & ors 41. SB Civil Writ Petition No.4901/2011 Rajendra Kumar Gari Versus RSRTC & ors 42.SB Civil Writ Petition No.6023/2011 Parasram Jat Versus RSRTC & anr 43. SB Civil Writ Petition No.13856/2011 Kaptan Singh & ors Versus RSRTC & anr 44. SB Civil Writ Petition No.13857/2011 Ramendra Singh & ors Versus RSRTC & anr 45. SB Civil Writ Petition No.13895/2011 Ashok Kumar Gurjar Versus RSRTC & anr 46. SB Civil Writ Petition No.13899/2011 Vikas Sharma & ors Versus RSRTC & anr 47. SB Civil Writ Petition No.13900/2011 Mahendra Kumar Kakkad & ors Versus RSRTC & ors 48. SB Civil Writ Petition No.14032/2011 Mahendra Kumar Chaturvedi & ors Versus RSRTC & anr 49. SB Civil Writ Petition No.14127/2011 Brij Gopal Sharma & ors Versus RSRTC & anr 50. SB Civil Writ Petition No.14128/2011 Roshan Lal Meena & ors Versus RSRTC & anr 51. SB Civil Writ Petition No.14134/2011 Yogesh Kumar Sharma & ors Versus RSRTC & anr 52. SB Civil Writ Petition No.14135/2011 Mahesh Chand & anr Versus RSRTC & anr 53. SB Civil Writ Petition No.14136/2011 Devi Shankar Sharma & ors Versus RSRTC & anr 54. SB Civil Writ Petition No.14154/2011 Sushil Sharma & ors Versus RSRTC & anr 55. SB Civil Writ Petition No.14178/2011 Harday Kumar Pradhan & anr Versus RSRTC & anr 56. SB Civil Writ Petition No.14180/2011 Kamlesh Kumar Sharma & ors Versus RSRTC & anr 57. SB Civil Writ Petition No.14181/2011 Anil Kumar Sharma & ors Versus RSRTC & ors 58. SB Civil Writ Petition No.14182/2011 Mahaveer Prasad Sikhwal & ors Versus RSRTC & ors 59.SB Civil Writ Petition No.14183/2011 Kamal Kishore Sharma & anr Versus RSRTC & ors 60. SB Civil Writ Petition No.14184/2011 Virendra Singh Versus RSRTC & ors 61. SB Civil Writ Petition No.14185/2011 Jai Pal Singh & ors Versus RSRTC & ors 62. SB Civil Writ Petition No.14186/2011 Gopal Lal Gurjar Versus RSRTC & ors 63. SB Civil Writ Petition No.14187/2011 Ram Kumar Sharma & ors Versus RSRTC & ors 64. SB Civil Writ Petition No.14226/2011 Kedar Sharma Versus RSRTC & anr 65. SB Civil Writ Petition No.14231/2011 Ravi Kumar & ors Versus RSRTC & anr 66. SB Civil Writ Petition No.14233/2011 Rakesh Kumar Sharma Versus RSRTC & anr 67. SB Civil Writ Petition No.14304/2011 Vinod Kumar Sharma Versus RSRTC & ors 68. SB Civil Writ Petition No.14305/2011 Mahesh Kumar & ors Versus RSRTC & ors 69. SB Civil Writ Petition No.14411/2011 Jitendra Kumar Sharma Versus RSRTC & ors 70. SB Civil Writ Petition No.14416/2011 Shukh Ram Meena Versus RSRTC & ors 71.SB Civil Writ Petition No.14433/2011 Rajesh Kumar Versus RSRTC & anr 72. SB Civil Writ Petition No.14439/2011 Iram Ahmad & ors Versus RSRTC & anr 73. SB Civil Writ Petition No.14441/2011 Govind Ram Sharma Versus RSRTC & anr 74. SB Civil Writ Petition No.14442/2011 Subhash Chand & ors Versus RSRTC & anr 75. SB Civil Writ Petition No.14481/2011 Jai Prakash Sharma Versus RSRTC & anr 76. SB Civil Writ Petition No.14482/2011 Manish Kumar Sharma Versus RSRTC & anr 77. SB Civil Writ Petition No.14483/2011 Vikram Singh Versus RSRTC & anr 78. SB Civil Writ Petition No.14491/2011 Shish Ram & anr Versus RSRTC & anr 79.SB Civil Writ Petition No.14494/2011 Naresh Kumar Vyas Versus RSRTC & ors 80. SB Civil Writ Petition No.14503/2011 Kamlesh Kumar Yogi Versus RSRTC & anr 81. SB Civil Writ Petition No.14509/2011 Daya Shankar Sharma Versus RSRTC & anr 82. SB Civil Writ Petition No.14564/2011 Madan Lal Mandiwal Versus RSRTC & ors 83. SB Civil Writ Petition No.14565/2011 Madan Mohan Meena & ors Versus RSRTC & ors 84. SB Civil Writ Petition No.14573/2011 Sarafraj Khan & anr Versus RSRTC & ors 85. SB Civil Writ Petition No.14605/2011 Shanker Lal Meena & anr Versus RSRTC & ors 86. SB Civil Writ Petition No.14606/2011 Kailash Chand Sharma & anr Versus RSRTC & ors 87. SB Civil Writ Petition No.14625/2011 Satish Chand Meena & ors Versus RSRTC & anr 88. SB Civil Writ Petition No.14709/2011 Sanjay Khan & anr Versus RSRTC & anr 89. SB Civil Writ Petition No.14734/2011 Ghanshyam Surolia Versus RSRTC & anr 90. SB Civil Writ Petition No.14736/2011 Chandra Prakash Versus RSRTC & anr 91. SB Civil Writ Petition No.14752/2011 Sushila Yadav Versus RSRTC & ors 92. SB Civil Writ Petition No.14754/2011 Ganesh Narain Yadav Versus RSRTC & ors 93. SB Civil Writ Petition No.14766/2011 Om Prakash Sharma Versus RSRTC 94. SB Civil Writ Petition No.14767/2011 Rajya Vardhan Singh & ors Versus RSRTC & anr 95. SB Civil Writ Petition No.14783/2011 Ram Niwas Versus RSRTC & anr 96 SB Civil Writ Petition No.14920/2011 Anil Sharma & anr Versus RSRTC & anr 9.11.2011 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr Vigyan Shah Mr Anoop Dhand Mr Dharmendra Jain Mr Abhishek Sharma Mr Ram Pratap Saini Mr Jitendra Pandey Mr Amit Jindal Mr Hem Singh Rathore Mr GL Sharma Mr Chain Singh Rathore Mr Kailash Choudhary Mr Naveen Dhuwan Mr Dharmendra Barala Mr Kartar Singh Mr Poonam Chand Sharma Mr Vijay Poonia Mr DP Sharma Mr VK Yadav Mr Ghanshyam Singh Sisodia Mrs Sangeeta Sharma Mr Vinod Singhal Mr Ashwini Jaiman Mr RB Sharma Mr Ratan Kaushik Mr Sultan Singh Kuri Mr BBL Sharma Mr Abdul Wahid Naqvi Mr M Iqbak Khan Mr Anil Kumar Sharma Mr Rajesh Bhamboo Mr Vinod Goyal Mr Tanveer Ahmed Mr Vijay Pathak - for petitioners Mr Virendra Lodha, Sr Adv with Mr Ankit Jain Mr Ashok Bansal Mr Rajeev Surana for respondents Mr Manjeet Singh, IAS, Chairman & Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Rajasthan, Jaipur BY THE COURT:
By these writ petitions, selections to the post of Driver, Conductor, Artisan Gr II and III have been challenged. The challenge is on many grounds, however, the grounds of challenge have been confined only to certain issues. Accordingly, those are discussed.
Learned counsel for petitioners submit that while holding the trade test for the post of Conductor, one was asked to drive the vehicle and 30 marks out of 50 were provided for performance of driving. For the post of Conductor, one could not have been compelled to possess the driving licence. Aforesaid issue has already been decided by this court in the case of Nirmal Kumar Jain & ors versus RSRTC & ors, SB Civil Writ Petition No.14710/2010 vide order dated 2.9.2011. Accordingly, trade test for the post of Conductor by providing 30 marks for driving becomes illegal.
The other issue is in regard to minimum passing marks in the trade test. While issuing the advertisement or at any point of time, respondent Corporation never informed to any of the candidates that one is required to possess minimum 30 marks in the trade test. The aforesaid decision to provide minimum passing marks in the trade test was taken in the month of September, 2011 i.e. much after majority of candidates appeared in the trade test. The petitioners appeared in the trade test without knowing that they are required to possess minimum pass marks thus action of the respondents to provide such a condition in the midst of the selection and that too without information, is illegal.
It is further urged that while declaring the result on the website, list indicate different marks then earlier indicated. Change in the marks of the candidates should not be permitted in the manner it has been done by the respondents. The Corporation should maintain same marks as obtained by the petitioners in their written examination and, for that purpose, if any petitioner makes a representation, he may be shown the copy of the written examination which may be of the trade test also .
It is further urged that respondents, at the first instance, declared cut of marks for different categories. The cut off marks were revised by the respondents after the judgment in the case of Narpat Dan Versus RSRTC & anr, SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2183/2011, decided on 31.5.2011 at Principal Seat, Jodhpur (reported in 2011 (3) WLC(Raj.) page 677, though prior to it, many of the petitioners having secured the cut off marks were considered eligible for the trade test and were allowed accordingly. Their candidature should not have been ignored thereafter. This is more so when they were not party in the case of Narpat Dan (supra) and otherwise the judgment in the case aforesaid does not indicate that those who have secured more marks than cut off marks should be ignored with the indication to provide new cut off marks. Respondents may accordingly be given directions to allow all those petitioners who appeared in the trade test after obtaining cut off marks prescribed initially and, if they fall in the over all merit, then to be given appointment.
The issue of few petitioners is that they have been declared medically unfit and four candidates were declared qualified for the post of Artisan Gr III despite the fact that those candidates are not in possession of the required qualification in the field of body-building as they are having the qualification of Fitter thus need to be ignored and, for those who have been declared medically unfit, they may be ordered to be re-examined.
It is lastly urged that those falling in the category of Special Backward Class (SBC) should be considered in the aforesaid category and may not be denied benefit of the category as while issuing advertisement, no such indication for reservation to SBC category was given. Accordingly, petitioners falling in the SBC category should not be ignored for grant of benefit of reservation to the extent of 1%. Learned counsel also submit that relaxation of marks has been given to the reserve caste candidate illegal on the minimum passing marks in the trade test, however, the aforesaid argument need not to be pressed if the requirement of minimum passing marks in the trade test is done away.
Learned counsel for respondents submit that delay in making appointment is causing great hardship to the Corporation thus, on instructions received from the Chairman & Managing Director of the Corporation, who is present in person in the court, they agreed for resolution of certain issues in the following manner -
1. So far as trade test for the post of Conductor is concerned, it is no doubt true that 30 marks were allocated towards driving. The issue to possess driving licence has been decided by this court in the case of Nirmal Kumar Jain (supra) wherein, referring to the various provisions, this court came to the conclusion that amended Regulations cannot be given effect to unless they are notified in the official gazette. It was in reference to section 45 of the State Transport Corporation Act. Accordingly, the Corporation will consider the cases of the petitioners who appeared in the trade test without driving licence by taking their 20 marks in written paper in the trade test on proportionate basis on 50 marks. This is to ignore 30 marks for driving and to allow proportionate benefit on those marks. It is only for those who appeared in the trade test pursuant to interim order of this court either in the present writ petitions or the petitioners in the earlier writ petitions whether at Jaipur or Principal Seat, Jodhpur. This is to avoid multiplication of the litigation further. Accordingly, if a candidate has obtained 10 marks out of 20 in the trade test, proportionate calculation of 50 would be made by making it 25. Same formula would be applied for the petitioners based on the aforesaid.
2. The respondent Corporation will not insist on the minimum pass marks in the trade test as it was not indicated in the advertisement or at any point of time by issuing corrigendum. The cases of the petitioners would be considered accordingly. This is in the background that decision in that regard should have been notified to all the candidates so as to perform well in the trade test and the Corporation has realised the aforesaid thus agrees to the prayer made by the petitioners.
3. So far as discrepancy in the marks of the written examination and of the trade test shown in the first list on the website and amended list is concerned, the Corporation agrees to show the copies to each of the petitioners who make representation and further to maintain the marks as obtained by them. First list issued on the website was having some discrepancy thus second list was issued indicating correct marks yet, if any of the petitioners is eager to see as to whether he has given the same marks, as obtained, copies would be shown to them. In case of any discrepancy, it would be rectified.
4. So far as the candidates who were allowed for the trade test pursuant to the first cut off marks indicated by the Corporation, their candidature would be considered based on the marks obtained in the written examination as well as trade test as indicated in above manner and if any of the candidates will find place in the merit, he would not be denied benefit of appointment. This is to avoid further litigation as otherwise those meritorious candidates were not party in the case of Narpat Dan (supra), however, appointment would be given only to those who stand in merit and not otherwise.
5. The issue of medical unfitness would be got examined again by referring the matters to the Superintendent, SMS Medical College & Hospital, Jaipur to have an opinion of the medical board. It is only for those petitioners who have the grievance and makes a representation within shortest possible time.
6. so far as inclusion of certain candidates in the select list for the post of Artisan Gr III though they are not in a possession of the required qualification in the discipline. Since the matter is sub judice before this court in regard to four candidates, a final decision for those candidates would be taken as and when verdict is given by this court in the pending litigation and, till then, such persons would not be given appointment.
7. It is agreed by the Corporation that those candidates entitled to the benefit of 1% reservation of SBC would be considered accordingly if required certificate has been enclosed along with the form.
8. Apart from the aforesaid, if any discrepancy exists declaring any candidate to be ineligible then a representation may be made by them within a period of two weeks then same would be examined by the Corporation within shortest possible time.
It may, however, be made clear that the direction given by this court in the case of Nirmal Kumar Jain (supra) to possess the driving licence by the selected candidates on the post of Conductor within a period of two years from the date of Gazette Notification would be adhered to by all concerned.
Certain petitioners have filed writ petitions despite of rejection of their writ petitions at the Principal Seat, Jodhpur. One of such petition is SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15449/2011 Anand Pal & ors versus RSRTC & ors (Hari Prakash), thus, they should not be given benefit of this judgment.
Learned counsel for petitioners agree to what has been proposed by learned counsel for respondents and state that if the necessary directions are given, as stated by learned counsel for respondents, it would be in satisfaction of the grievance of the petitioners. Accordingly, writ petitions may be disposed of in the light of the submissions/ statement made by learned counsel for the respondents.
It is further submitted that issue as to whether a candidate belonging to the reserved caste can be shifted to general caste category after taken the benefit of relaxation or concession on account of age or on other ground, may be kept open for decision in an appropriate case. Same way, the issue as to whether academic qualification should be considered for determining the merit may also be kept open if in future any selection is made by the Corporation and the aforesaid is not given effect to despite to be taken for consideration of merit.
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 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 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 fact 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 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.
(MN BHANDARI), J.
bnsharma All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed.
(BN Sharma) PS-cum-JW