Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Satyapal Singh And Ors vs R S R T C And Ors on 30 July, 2012
Author: Mn Bhandari
Bench: Mn Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3600/2012 Ramesh Chand versus Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & ors S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6794/2012 Dinesh Chand Sharma Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7789/2012 Ramavtar SharmaVs. RSRTC and Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7790/2012 Deependra Singh Shekhawat Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7791 /2012 Shishu Pal Bishnoi Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8048 /2012 Sunil Kumar Tiwari Vs. RSRTC and Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8602 /2012 Jitender Kumar Sharma Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8789/2012 Suman Kumar Khakhad Vs. RSRTC and Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9655/2012 Satyendra Kuamar Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10377 /2012 Deepak Kumar Vs. RSRTC and Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9954/2012 Chandra Prakash Yadav Vs. RSRTC and Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9952/2012 Ganjender Singh Shekhawat Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9876 /2012 Gajendra Singh Rathore Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9815/2012 Doulat RamVerma Vs. RSRTC and Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9685/2012 Visram Singh Meena Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9684 /2012 Sonuram Bairwa Vs. RSRTC and Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10645/2012 Mahendra Kumar Singh Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10644/2012 Kaptan Singh Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10643/2012 Shubham Kumar Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10642 /2012 Deewan Singh Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10472/2012 Satya Narayan Vs. RSRTC and Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10451 /2012 Alok Kumar Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10441/2012 Jay Prakash Gurjar Vs. RSRTC and Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8142/2011 Shivnath Mehala Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7997/2011 Ram Kunvar Sharma & Anr. Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6433/2011 Lekhram Meena and Ors. Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7231/2011 Kailash Chand Meena Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9122 /2011 Chunnalal Vs. RSRTC and Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16047/2011 Amit Kumar Bundela and Anr. Vs. RSRTC and Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16048/2011 Rajesh Meena Vs. RSRTC and Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16056/2011 Ravindra and Ors. Vs. RSRTC and Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16144/2011 Raghvendra Singh Shekhawat Vs. RSRTC and Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16642/2011 Ram Singh Meena Vs. RSRTC and Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16966 /2011 Naresh Kumar Beniwal Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16799 /2011 Mahaveer Singh & Ors. Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16800/2011 Somveer Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16833/2011 Amit Kumar Meena & Anr.Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16834 /2011 Rameshwar Lal and Anr. Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16895 /2011 Ram Raj Meena Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16896 /2011 Arun Singh Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17118/2011 Rakesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17875 /2011 Dharmveer Singh Vs. RSRTC and Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10959/2011 Jagdish Prasad Yadav Vs. RSRTC and Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11090 /2011 Ajay Singh Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14284/2011 Ram Lal Verma Vs. RSRTC and Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14677 /2011 Sawai Singh Vs. RSRTC and Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15772/2011 Vibheeshan Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15887/2011 Murli Manohar Vs. RSRTC. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17123/2011 Shashikant Basotiya Vs. RSRTC and Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6278/2011 Pawan Kumar Singhal Vs. RSRTC and Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6387/2011 Mahesh Kumar Godara Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5205/2012 Amit Kumar Tank Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5193/2012 Dheerendra Pratap Singh Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5192/2012 Ramveer Singh & Ors Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5102/2012 Ajmat Hussain Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4952/2012 Harish Chand Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4953/2012 Shadab Mohammadiya Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4954/2012 Mahendra Singh Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4888/2012 Dharmendra Kumar Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4891/2012 Jaswant Kumar Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4921/2012 Tej Prakash Verma Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5312/2012 Yogesh Kumar Sharma Vs. RSRTC S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5296/2012 Govind Singh Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4858/2012 Vineet Pareek Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4845/2012 Vijay Singh Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5099/2012 Hari Prasad Sharma Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5098/2012 Nathu Singh Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5064/2012 Raj Pal Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5063/2012 Sanjay Kumawat Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5020/2012 Vishnu Datt Sharma Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5015/2012 Sunil Singh & Ors Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5013/2012 Dharamvir Singh Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5006/2012 Chhitar Mal Sharma Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4955/2012 Pitam Singh Meena Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4910/2012 Indra Singh Rathore Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4923/2012 Virender Singh Khangraot Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4922/2012 Pramod Sharma Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5259/2012 Suraj Narayan Yadav Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5995/2012 Jitendra Kumar & Ors. Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5454/2012 Prahalad Kumar Meena Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5508/2012 Rajesh Kumar Meena Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5548/2012 Bhagwan Singh Barath Vs. RSRTC and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2346/2012 Mohan Singh Choudhary Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Mis. Review Application No.57/2012 In S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.13855/2011 Prem Prakash Sharma Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10694/2012 Lakhami Singh Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1184/2012 Rajendra Singh Meena Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10577/2012 Subhash Chandra Bijarnia Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11200/2012 Dinesh Chand Tiwari Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6363/2012 Shankar Lal & Anr. Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6166/2012 Manoj Kumar Sharma Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6645/2012 Vijendra Kumar Mahawar Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6635/2012 Manoj Kumar Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6604/2012 Hemant Kumar Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6395/2012 Om Prakash Yadav Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6394/2012 Prabhakar Goswami & Anr. Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6371/2012 Paramveer Singh Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6314/2012 Vijay Singh Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6810/2012 Krishan Kumar Parik Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6786/2012 Shrinarain Sharma & Ors. Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6728/2012 Madan Singh Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6700/2012 Kishor Kumar Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6672/2012 Deva Ram & Anr. Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6670/2012 Jasbindra Singh & Anr. Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6668/2012 Prahlad Ram Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6667/2012 Hitendra Kumar Sharma Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6662/2012 Chandra Shekhar Tiwari & Ors. Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6550/2012 Hari Prasad Saini Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6231/2012 Jitendra Sharma & Anr. Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6229/2012 Pawan Yadav Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6169/2012 Kaduram Meena Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6589/2012 Ramesh Chand Meena Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6398/2012 Mohan Lal Saini Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7427/2012 Deep Singh @ Deep Singh Shekhawat Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7403/2012 Ravindra Kumar Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8402/2012 Pawan Kumar Sharma Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8401/2012 Dalip Singh @ Daleep Singh Jhakad Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8400/2012 Rajendra Singh Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7649/2012 Surendra Kumar Rathore Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7549/2012 Vinod Kumar Jat Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7529/2012 Dilla Khan Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7472/2012 Phool Singh Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7425/2012 Devendra Kumar Dhakad Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7288/2012 Navlesh Kumar Meena Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7275/2012 Harimohan Verma Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7256/2012 Aditya Pancholy Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7172/2012 Satyendra Singh Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7129/2012 Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7090/2012 Rajpal Samota & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7057/2012 Rajesh Kumar Choudhary Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7038/2012 Madhuwan Singh Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7034/2012 Hanuman Lal Jat & Anr. Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7032/2012 Shiv Prasad Sahu Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6912/2012 Virendra Kumar Meena Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6895/2012 Rajendra Kumar Mahar & Ors. Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6894/2012 Amit Kumar Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6893/2012 Gopal Ram Kasawa Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7593/2012 Ved Prakash & Ors. Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7592/2012 Virendra Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7551/2012 Keshav Sharma Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7548/2012 Om Prakash Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7546/2012 Dharmendra Kumar Sharma Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8012/2012 Shambhu Singh Naruka & Ors. Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8025/2012 Deepak Kumar Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8086/2012 Heear Lal Chawla Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7817/2012 Dola Ram & Anr. Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8261/2012 Brijesh Singh Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8210/2012 Deshraj Singh Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8314/2012 Ram Milan Singh & Ors. Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4264/2012 Ram Prasad Sharma Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4770/2012 Pramod Kumar Lawaniya Vs. The Managing Director-Chairman, RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4769/2012 Sunil Kumar Sharma & Anr. Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4248/2012 Sugad Singh Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4222/2012 Sunil Kumar & Anr. Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3986/2012 Dinesh Kumar Sharma Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3898/2012 Ganesh Kumar Inani Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3881/2012 Mukesh Singh Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3807/2012 Ram Singh Gurjar Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3884/2012 Vikram Singh Thind Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3888/2012 Jai Shankar Pareek Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3912/2012 Rajveer Singh Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4060/2012 Chetan Sharma (Gangid) Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4137/2012 Hitendra Singh Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4142/2012 Daya Shankar Jat Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4163/2012 Bhanwar Singh Meena Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4165/2012 Ram Lakhan Meena Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4321/2012 Pratap Singh Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4442/2012 Bhanwar Singh Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4494/2012 Sunder Singh Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4540/2012 Shriram Gurjar & Anr. Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4572/2012 Ravi Shanker Sharma Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4600/2012 Ramavtar Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4649/2012 Hari Mohan Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4694/2012 Preetam Singh Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4737/2012 Prahlad Meena Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4738/2012 Mahendra Kumar Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4739/2012 Ashok Kumar Saini Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4740/2012 Surender Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4771/2012 Ram Niwas Bhargad & Ors. Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1347/2012 Gopal Lal Meena Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3420/2012 Mahendra Kumar Tiwadi Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3246/2012 Mahesh Kumar Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3247/2012 Narendra Kumar & Ors. Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2988/2012 Bhawani Singh Shekhawat Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2928/2012 Khinya Ram Godara Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2927/2012 Sanjay Kumar Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2926/2012 Kailash Chandra Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2923/2012 Mohit Sain Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2563/2012 Bal Ram Singh & Anr. Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2390/2012 Sailendra Singh Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2377/2012 Mahesh Choudhary Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2328/2012 Balram Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1947/2012 Ajay Sharma Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1629/2012 Rajendra Kuwal Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1628/2012 Karampriya Pancholi Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1600/2012 Surendra Kumar Isharwal Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1590/2012 Mohar Singh Gurjar Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1361/2012 Rajendra Singh Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3313/2012 Brij Mohan Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1762/2012 Ashok Kumar Tanwar Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1849/2012 Laxmi Kant Jain Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1847/2012 Kapoor Kumar Chandera Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1740/2012 Kishan Lal Bairwa & Anr. Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1743/2012 Vijendra Singh Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1972/2012 Chhotu Lal Meena Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1971/2012 Vishnu Lal Sen Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Ors. SB Civil Writ Petition No.11108/2012 Suraj Kumar Sharma versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.5989/2012 Roop Narayan Sharma versus RSRTC SB Civil Writ Petition No.5806/2012 Prem Kumar versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.5722/2012 Kamal Singh versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.5714/2012 Rajaram versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.5712/2012 Manish Kumar versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.5711/2012 Doongar Lal versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.5706/2012 Rajendra Singh Khidiya versus RSRTC SB Civil Writ Petition No.5704/2012 Gulab Chand Bijaraniya versus RSRTC & ors SB Civil Writ Petition No.5700/2012 Satyaveer Singh versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.5689/2012 Rajnarayan Jaat versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.5530/2012 Pawan Kumar & anr versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.5648/2012 Mahendra Singh Shekhawat versus RSRTC & ors SB Civil Writ Petition No.5645/2012 Ramesh Kumar versus RSRTC and ors SB Civil Writ Petition No.5644/2012 Suja Ram Gurjar versus RSRTC and anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.5625/2012 Jitendra Kumar Sharma versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.5622/2012 Ranjeet Singh versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.5615/2012 Arvind Kumar Bhuria versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.5614/2012 Sunil Choudhary versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.5381/2012 Subhash Chandra versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.5319/2012 Mukut Bihar Sharma versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.5552/2012 Moti Ram versus RSRTC SB Civil Writ Petition No.5646/2012 Radhey Shyam Mali versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.5579/2012 Vijay Singh versus RSRTC & ors SB Civil Writ Petition No.5313/2012 Surendra Singh & anr versus RSRTC & ors SB Civil Writ Petition No.5146/2010 Prabhudayal Yadav versus State of Rajasthan & ors SB Civil Writ Petition No.5148/2010 Sitaram Pareek & anr versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No./51492010 Ghanshyam Lal Sharma & ors versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.5262/2010 Anil Kumar versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.5263/2010 Kailash Chand Sharma & ors versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.5311/2010 Gagan Dass versus RSRTC & ors SB Civil Writ Petition No.5336/2010 Madan Lal Sharma & anr versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.5337/2010 Ramniwas versus State of Rajasthan & ors SB Civil Writ Petition No.5348/2010 Bhagguram versus State of Rajasthan & ors SB Civil Writ Petition No.5374/2010 Sunil Yadav & ors versus RSRTC & ors SB Civil Writ Petition No.5553/2010 Dharmendra Kumar Sharma & ors vs State of Rajasthan & ors SB Civil Writ Petition No.5572/2010 Mahesh Kumar Trivedi versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.5585/2010 Rakesh Kumar Sharma versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.5594/2010 Desh Raj Karnawat & ors versus RSRTC & ors SB Civil Writ Petition No.15114/2010 Mahendra Singh & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors SB Civil Writ Petition No.162/2011 Devishankar Meena versus RSRTC & ors SB Civil Writ Petition No.240/2011 Charan Singh versus RSRTC & ors SB Civil Writ Petition No.4120/2011 Manoj Kumar versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.4827/2011 Ankit Kumar versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.5046/2011 Bajrang Lal Kumawat & ors versus RSRTC & ors SB Civil Writ Petition No.5296/2011 Suresh Chand Meena versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.5396/2011 Surendra Kumar versus State of Rajasthan & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.5287/2011 Yogendra Singh versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.5285/2011 Vikash Mitharwal versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.5139/2011 Nihal Singh & ors versus RSRTC SB Civil Writ Petition No.263/2011 Narendra Mohan Rajora versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.3508/2012 Natwar Singh versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.3733/2012 Kana Ram Jat versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.3654/2012 Raghuveer Khinchi & anr versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.3479/2012 Dheeraj Kumar Sharma versus RSRTC & ors SB Civil Writ Petition No.3545/2012 Sanjay Kumar versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.3620/2012 Tulsi Ram Meena versus RSRTC & ors SB Civil Writ Petition No.3794/2012 Murli Manohar & anr versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.3647/2012 Shankar Lal Jat & anr versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.3635/2012 Suraj Prakash Soni versus RSRTC & ors SB Civil Writ Petition No.3602/2012 Harendra Singh & ors versus RSRTC & ors SB Civil Writ Petition No.3598/2012 Man Mohan versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.3593/2012 Ravindra Pal Jadaun versus RSRTC & ors SB Civil Writ Petition No.3572/2012 Virendra Singh versus RSRTC & ors SB Civil Writ Petition No.3570/2012 Jagmohan versus RSRTC & ors SB Civil Writ Petition No.3492/2012 Yogesh Gupta versus RSRTC & ors SB Civil Writ Petition No.3589/2012 Ajay Pal & ors versus RSRTC & ors SB Civil Writ Petition No.3552/2012 Raj Kumar Acharya versus RSRTC & ors SB Civil Writ Petition No.3421/2012 Dharmendra Kumar versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.3555/2012 Umesh Kumar Yadav versus RSRTC & ors SB Civil Writ Petition No.3450/2012 Shiv Charan Meena versus RSRTC & ors SB Civil Writ Petition No.3422/2012 Rajesh Kumar versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.3560/2012 Dev Anand versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.3577/2012 Vinod Kumar versus RSRTC & ors SB Civil Writ Petition No.3451/2012 Rajendra Singh versus RSRTC & ors SB Civil Writ Petition No.3585/2012 Rajesh Kumar versus RSRTC & ors SB Civil Writ Petition No.3483/2012 Dinesh Chand versus RSRTC & ors SB Civil Writ Petition No.3587/2012 Satyapal Singh & ors versus RSRTC & ors SB Civil Writ Petition No.3590/2012 Pradeep Kumar Yadav & anr versus RSRTC & ors SB Civil Writ Petition No.3597/2012 Kishan Lal Meena versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Review Petition No.33/2012 in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 13855/2011 Mahesh Chand & ors versus Prem Prakash Sharma & ors SB Civil Writ Petition No.487/2012 Ravi Shankar Sharma & ors vs Managing Director, RSRTC SB Civil Writ Petition No.18057/2011 Pushpendra Singh versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.18608//2011 Lakhan Singh Naruka versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.18579/2011 Dhanna Ram versus RSRTC & ors SB Civil Writ Petition No.196/2012 Mukesh Kumar versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.18618/2011 Shubh Karan Charan versus RSRTC & ors SB Civil Writ Petition No.853/2012 Gajendra Singh & anr versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.18540/2011 Pooran Mal versus RSRTC & ors SB Civil Writ Petition No.18577/2011 Shambhu Lal Yogi & ors versus RSRTC & ors SB Civil Writ Petition No.18541/2011 Ram Avtaar Gurjar versus RSRTC & ors SB Civil Writ Petition No.18578/2011 Babyu Singh & ors versus RSRTC & ors SB Civil Writ Petition No.18616/2011 Hari Ram versus RSRTC & ors SB Civil Writ Petition No.18617/2011 Mahaveer Prasad Sharma versus RSRTC & ors SB Civil Writ Petition No.18615/2011 Chand Kishore Sharma versus RSRTC & ors SB Civil Writ Petition No.18441/2011 Sanwar Mal Balai & anr versus RSRTC & ors SB Civil Writ Petition No.18622/2011 Ramgopal Khinchi & anr versus RSRTC & ors SB Civil Writ Petition No.201/2012 Ram Kishor Meena versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.499/2012 Murari Lal Joshi & ors versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.525/2012 Ajay Singh & ors versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.602/2012 Surendra Singh & anr versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.1343/2012 Johari Lal Meena & anr versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.700/2012 Mohan Singh Khichi versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.1228/2012 Sanjay Kumar & anr versus RSRTC & ors SB Civil Writ Petition No.1292/2012 Ramkunwar Singh versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.1055/2012 Sushil Kumar versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.3098/2012 Rajaram Gurjar versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.1186/2012 Sitaram Yadav versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.5204/2012 Kayam Singh Naruka versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.4887/2012 Madan Lal versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.6068/2012 Girdhari Lal versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.6070/2012 Shiv Dayal & ors versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.6132/2012 Pooran Mal Meena & ors versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.584/2012 Satendra Singh versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No. 5713/2012 Ashok Kumar Kaswa versus RSRTC & anr 30.7.2012 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr Vigyan Shah Mr RB Sharma Mr Tanveer Ahmed Mr Ram Pratap Saini Mr Raj Kumar Goyal Mr Dharmendra Jain Mr Poonam Chand Sharma Mr PS Sharma Mr DS Bagadia Mr Nikhlesh Katara Mr Dharmendra Barala Mr GL Sharma Mr Surendra Kumar Mr Sandeep Garssa Mr Kailash Choudhary Mr Poonam Chand Bhandari Mr Ashok Singh Shekhawat Mr Naveen Dhuwan Mr Kapil Gupta Mr Shailesh Prakash Sharma Mr Dr Mahesh Sharma Mr Sita Ram Samota Mr Bharat Singh Mr Sudarshan Laddha Mr Amit Jindal Mr Rajeev Sogarwal Mr Yogesh Singhal Mr YK Sharma Mr Sanjay Rahar Mr Anoop Dhand Mr Santosh Singh Shekhawat Mr BS Gurjar Mr Karanpal Singh Mr Sandeep Saxena Mr Harish Maan Mr CL Saini Mr Vijay Poonia Mr Jitendra Panday Mr Ramesh Choudhary Mr Sandeep Bhagwati Mr Surendra Meel Mr Rajesh Mutha Mr Sultan Singh Kuri Mr Prem Kumar Sharma Mr BL Dhakar Mr Girish Khandelwal Mr Gajendra Sharma Mr Chain Singh Rathore Mr Amardeep Atwal Mr Takhat Singh Rathore Mr Rajendra Soni Mr Prahlad Singh Mr Rajendra Vaish Mr VK Sharma Mr SK Singodiya Mr Narendra Shandilya Mr SN Meena Mr Raj Kumar Sharma Mr Vinod Goyal Mr TC Sharma Mr VS Fauzdar Mr Rakesh Bhargava Mr Reashm Bhargava Mr Sumit Khandelwal Mr Lokendra Singh Shekhawat Mr Rajesh Bhamboo Mr Vijay Pathak Mr Rameshwar Sharma Mr Vishwanath Karan Rathore Mr RD Meena Mr Ashwini Jaiman Mr Kartar Singh Fauzdar Mr Praveen Poswal Dr Shivendra Singh Rathore Mr DD Khandelwal Mr Narendra Mishra Mr Pradeep Mathur Mr Anand Sharma Mr S Kumar Mr RK Saini Mr Mahesh Chand Gupta Mr TL Pandey Mr Bharat Yadav Mr Hari Kishan Saini Mr Jitendra Kumar Pandey Mr Mahipal Kharra Mr Mohd. Iqbal Khan Mr OP Sharma Mr Ajatshatru Mina Mr DC Gupta Mr Laxmi Kant Sharma Mr Sandeep Saxena for petitioners Mr Virendra Lodha, Sr Adv with Mr Ankit Jain Mr Ashok Kumar Bansal for respondents BY THE COURT:
Since this bunch of writ petitions involve similar controversy thus all the writ petitions are heard together and decided by this common order.
These writ petitions pertain to selection to the posts of Driver, Conductor and other posts pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 2010. In fact, two advertisements were issued by the respondents, however, final advertisement was issued on 24.9.2010 in view of amendment in the Regulations. During the course of selection and subsequent thereto, many litigations came before this court and were decided.
It would be necessary to give brief history of previous litigations.
First bunch of writ petitions was decided by this court led by Narpat Dan Versus RSRTC & anr, SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2183/2011, decided on 31.5.2011 at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, reported as 2011 (3) WLC (Rajasthan) page 677. Therein, it was held that reserve category candidates obtained higher marks than the general/ open category candidates in written examination cannot be held ineligible for trade test thus respondents were directed to re-notify cut off marks of the written examination. The aforesaid litigation came when cut off marks of general/ open category was provided as 65 marks, whereas, for OBC category it was 77 marks. After the judgment in the case aforesaid, respondents re-notified cut off marks of the written examination. For general/open category, it was 75 marks, whereas, for OBC category candidates it was 71 marks.
The second litigation came in regard to the qualification of Driver and Conductor. A conductor was asked to possess Conductor's licence as well as driving licence without amendment in the Regulations as per Section 45 of the State Road Transport Corporation Act. Second bunch of writ petitions was decided by this court led by Nirmal Kumar Jain & ors versus RSRTC & ors, SB Civil Writ Petition No.14710/2010 vide order dated 2.9.2011. It was held that without amendment in the Regulations as per section 45 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, it cannot be given effect to so as to impose requirement of driving licence for the post of Conductor.
The third litigation was decided by this court in the bunch of writ petitions led by Prem Prakash Sharma versus RSRTC & anr, SB Civil Writ Petition No. 13855/2011, on 9.11.2011, wherein, disposal of the writ petitions was on agreed terms thus directions given therein remain for petitioners only and for earlier litigants specified therein.
So far as present writ petitions are concerned, they involve certain questions concerned to the aforesaid selection itself. Since many fold grievances have been raised thus they are decided as follows -
Issue No.1 Learned counsel for petitioners allege that the candidates failed to secure required cut off marks in the written examination have been given appointment leaving those who are better placed. It is also submitted that there are candidates who have not secured final cut off marks, yet given appointment.
Learned counsel for respondents submit that for general category, initially, cut off marks in written examination were 65, later on, it was changed to 75 however pursuant to the directions of this court in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (supra) those candidates were adjudged suitably for trade test if secured earlier cut off marks but subject to the condition that they had earlier approached this court. This is in view of the fact that they were not party in the case of Narpat Dan (supra) thus judgment in that case should not have adversely affected them.
I find that while making selection, respondents determined cut off marks on two occasions. Initially, on completion of written examination so as to make candidates eligible for trade test. The cut off marks was changed in view of the judgment in the case of Narpat Dan (supra). The revision of cut off marks was made from lower to higher only for general/ open category candidates otherwise it was lowered down for reserve category candidates. However, it was without hearing them either in the case of Narpat Dan (supra) or by the respondents thus a direction was given by this court in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (supra) to consider petitioners therein for appointment but it was only for general/ open category candidates who had secured higher marks than initial cut off marks. Hence, if any candidate failed to secure cut off marks either prescribed initially or later on yet allowed in the trade test and selected leaving the petitioners then action of the respondents is discriminatory and illegal.
It is also seen by this court that even the candidates secured less marks than the final cut off marks, have also been selected and appointed. The aforesaid is also illegal as respondents cannot ignore candidates having higher marks.
It is seen that earlier cut off marks for general category candidates was 65, whereas, for OBC it was 77. Aforesaid cut off marks were changed, making it 75 marks for general category and 71 for OBC category to become eligible for trade test. As per the judgment in the case of Prem Prakash Shama (supra), general category candidates, who approached this court in the aforesaid set of petitions on or prior to 9.11.2011 would be entitled to the benefit of earlier cut off marks thus, if any other candidate was permitted to appear in the trade test followed by selection and appointment without obtaining required cut off marks in the written examination then it is due to default of the respondents. The respondents are accordingly directed to reconsider the matter so that no candidate is continued if obtained less marks than final cut off marks or the cut off marks of the written examination. If respondents intend to continue them, then petitioners who have secured better marks would also be eligible for appointment. The direction aforesaid would be applied after taking precaution of those candidates belonging to open/ general category and were part of the litigation in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (supra) or in the earlier litigation thus covered by the direction No.4 in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (supra) because their required cut off marks for written examination would be 65 but not for others. The aforesaid arrangement was allowed in view of the consent of the Corporation in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (supra), however, if general category candidates had not approached this court before 9.11.2011 then they would not be entitled to such benefit because consent of the Corporation cannot be applied in rem, rather, their candidature would be considered as per the revised cut off marks. Accordingly, first issue is allowed in favour of the petitioners. Respondents would be free to discontinue the candidates if appointed ignoring cut off marks in the written examination or final cut off marks. The discontinuance would however be after giving an opportunity of hearing to them. In case they are continued despite their low marks than cut off marks then those petitioners, who have obtained higher marks, would be entitled to appointment.
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 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.
It is contended that the formula so evolved by this court in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (surpa) should have been applied irrespective of the fact as to whether candidate approached this court on or before 9.11.2011. This is more so when many candidates, who had not even earlier challenged the condition to possess driving licence for the post of Conductor yet given benefit of revised marks in the trade test based on the formula evolved by this court.
Learned counsel for respondents submit that revised marks in the trade test have been allowed only in favour of those who approached this court on or before 9.11.2011 thus covered by the judgment in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (supra). In fact, judgment in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (supra) was on agreed terms thus is not applicable in rem. Those, who failed to approach this court in time, were not given benefit of said judgment as finality to the selection was given immediately after judgment in the aforesaid case, accordingly, appointments were made. If any candidate has been given benefit of revised marks in the trade test though did not approach this court on or before 9.11.2011, corrective action would be taken by the Corporation in those cases.
I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for parties and find that judgment in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (supra) was more or less on agreed terms. As per the judgment in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (supra), revised marks in the trade test was to be applied. The issue aforesaid was considered in the light of the condition to possess driving licence for the post of Conductor and it was only for those who were not in possession of driving licence. The challenge to the condition was thus not made by those who were having driving licence while applying for the post of Conductor. To clarify the aforesaid, the revised criteria for trade test was applicable only on those who approached this court on or before 9.11.2011 i.e. the date of judgment in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (supra) or in the earlier judgment in the case of Nirmal Kumar Jain (supra). The judgment aforesaid is not applicable to those who were in possession of driving licence so as Conductor's licence while applying for the post of Conductor and failed to challenge it before appointment. If the Corporation has revised the marks of trade test even for those candidates who were in possession of driving licence and not earlier challenged the condition to possess driving licence while applying for the post of Conductor, are not to be governed by the directions in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (supra). It is for the reason that immediately after the judgment in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (supra), appointments were given thus whoever failed to approach this court before appointment cannot be governed by the earlier judgment due to delay and consent of the Corporation is limited to those earlier petitions. Accordingly, if the Corporation has revised the marks of the trade test for those who are in possession of driving licence while applying for the post of Conductor or for those who had not approached this court on or before 9.11.2011 and denied benefit of revised marks to the petitioners then their action becomes discriminatory in nature. Accordingly, they are directed either to withdraw benefit of revised marks in the trade test for those who were not before the court on or before 9.11.2011 and otherwise the condition was not challenged as candidates were in possession of driving licence. If the appointments are cancelled in those cases, it should be by applying principles of natural justice. In case, respondent Corporation takes a decision to continue them, then all the petitioners would be eligible for revised cut off marks in the trade test, who applied for the post of Conductor and if find more marks than of candidates appointed, would also be eligible for appointment. The limited application of earlier judgment with cut off date in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (supra) can be in view of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kailash Chand Sharma versus State of Rajasthan & ors, reported as (2002) 6 SCC 562. Therein also, petitions filed after the earlier and main judgment were not entertained.
Issue No.3 -
The third issue pertains to certain questions having wrong answers and even recommended by the committee to delete them.
Learned counsel for petitioners submit that PHS Consultants Pvt Ltd, the company conducted the examination, admitted that three questions were having problem as one question was having all options wrong, whereas, in other two questions, wrong answers were accepted as right answers. The respondent Corporation deleted only one question, accordingly, bonus mark was given for one question, however, as per report of the committee, two questions were having wrong answers yet no action was taken to award marks to the candidates opted for correct answers.
Learned counsel for respondent Corporation submit that so far as one question is concerned, it has already been deleted and bonus mark has been awarded. So far as other two questions are concerned, agency informed about it on 16.1.2012 though prior to it, appointments were given thus selection process had already been completed. The issue regarding two incorrect answers was never raised by the petitioners.
I have considered submissions of learned counsel for parties. I find that in few petitions, issue has been raised for denial of marks to the petitioners though they had given correct answers. It was precisely for the reason that answer key of the two questions were set with the wrong answer. The consultant had realised the mistake. In view of the aforesaid, petitioners who had given correct answer of the question, could not secure marks, whereas, the candidate, who had given incorrect answer, could get marks on account of faulty answer key for two questions. The respondent Corporation should have rectified the list, however, I find that now not only select list has been finalised but appointments have also been given to the candidates. If a direction is given to amend the entire select list, then it will unsettle the entire selection and appointment, that too, without hearing the candidates, who have already been appointed. Thus, to balance the equities, it is directed to the respondent Corporation to re-assess the marks of those petitioners who have raised the aforesaid issue and if they had given correct answers as per the report of the consultant, then may be awarded marks as a consequence thereof. If, after carrying out the direction aforesaid, marks of such petitioners comes equivalent or more than the cut off then their cases for appointment may be considered if they are otherwise found eligible and meritorious, then be given appointment without disturbing the appointments of other candidates.
The direction aforesaid would apply only in those cases where the issue for wrong answer has been raised and not to other petitioners where this issue has not been raised. The directions aforesaid has also been given in the peculiar circumstances with limited application so that settled things may not be unsettled unnecessarily and to avoid multiplication of litigation.
Issue No.4 -
The fourth issue pertains to medical fitness of the candidates. It is mainly in regard to the condition of colour blindness for the post of Conductor.
It is stated by learned counsel for petitioners that colour blindness may be material for the post of Driver but not for the post of Conductor, however, respondents adjudged many candidates to be unsuitable finding them to be suffering from colour blindness ignoring that aforesaid is not required for the post of Conductor.
Learned counsel for respondent Corporation, on the other hand, submit that as and when a candidate made a request, medical examination was got conducted from SMS Hospital, Jaipur. The court earlier directed to conduct medical examination for the post of Driver thus it has nothing to do with the post of Conductor but medical fitness for the post of Conductor is also required and one is having colour blindness then he is not suitable for the post.
I have considered submissions of learned counsel and find that who is medically suitable for the post of Conductor and Driver is to be determined by the respondent Corporation. If a decision is taken to hold a candidate to be medically unfit for the post of Conductor, if he is having colour blindness then no interference is required to be made, however, if colour blindness is not coming in the way of the post of Conductor then respondent Corporation is directed to reconsider the matter to enable a candidate to get appointment to the post of Conductor subject to his merit, if he is declared medically unfit on account of colour blindness while seeking selection on the post of Conductor. Accordingly issue aforesaid is left for the Corporation to determine by a speaking order as to whether colour blindness would be an impediment to get appointment on the post of Conductor. In case it is held that colour blindness would not be a bar to seek appointment on the post of Conductor then petitioners should not be debarred from appointment to the post of Conductor on the ground of colour blindness subject to their merit. In case decision is taken otherwise, then petitioners would not be entitled to appointment on the aforesaid ground.
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.
Issue No.6 -
It is stated that condition to obtain minimum passing marks in the trade test was not accepted by this court in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (supra) thus appointment should have been given irrespective of marks in trade test.
Learned counsel for respondents submit that condition to possess minimum passing marks has not been waived in all cases but was re-calculated for the petitioners who approached this court earlier to challenge the condition to possess driving licence. In fact, the issue aforesaid was decided after holding that driving licence is not required by the candidate applied for the post of Conductor. However, requirement of passing marks in trade test was not done away in general and earlier judgment is not applicable in rem as the judgment dated 9.11.2011 was rendered on agreed terms. If issues are kept open then process of appointments cannot be completed at any point of time without limiting cut off date to approach this court. The view is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kailash Chand Sharma etc versus State of Rajasthan & ors, reported as (2002 ) 6 SCC 562.
I have considered the submissions and find that the issue for possession of minimum marks in the trade test was challenged. The challenge was by those who could not obtain minimum required marks in the trade test in absence of knowledge of driving and driving licence thus minimum marks could not be obtained by them because they were trade tested for driving thus unable to secure marks. The Corporation accordingly agreed to ignore passing marks in the trade test so that appointment may be made timely. This court accordingly issued directions as agreed by the Corporation, however, direction in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (supra) was applicable to the petitioners approached therein or on earlier occasion in the case of Nirmal Kumar Jain (supra). It is mainly for the reason that those who did not approach this court in time cannot be given benefit by keeping selection open indefinitely. Accordingly, judgment dated 9.11.2011 is on the agreed terms of the Corporation thus cannot be treated to be a judgment in rem but was applicable to the petitioners therein. If fact, if number of petitioners would have been more even at the initial time, the Corporation was at liberty to make contest, however, taking note of the size of the petitioners on earlier occasion and urgency of recruitment, if Corporation has agreed for certain terms, then it cannot be considered to be a direction in rem but is limited to the petitioners there in the earlier litigation. Accordingly, issue No.6 is decided against the petitioners and in favour of respondent Corporation.
Issue No.7 -
Issue aforesaid pertains to the act of discrimination in regard to the candidates having spectacles correction. The issue aforesaid has not been pressed by the petitioners, accordingly, dismissed.
Issue No.8 -
It is urged that candidates from waiting list were given appointment subsequent to the judgment in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (supra) by issuing of lists on three occasions though such candidates should not have been given appointment as the reserve list can be used only when a candidate has failed to join the post, however, respondent Corporation made appointment of the candidates from reserve list.
Learned counsel for respondent Corporation submit that few candidates were appointed from the reserve list. It was only those who secured equal marks to the cut off. It was due to non-joining of the candidates from the main list.
I have considered the submissions and find that the reserve/ waiting list can be operated only when a candidate failed to join the post, however, in the present matter, it is not indicated as to who was the candidate(s) failed to join the post though averment in the reply exist to the aforesaid effect but it is quite vague. If candidate(s) from waiting/ reserve list has been appointed, it is required to be reviewed by the respondent Corporation as definite directions for their discontinuance is not given in absence of an opportunity of hearing to them and as they are not party to the litigation. In any case, respondent Corporation would review the issue aforesaid. If the candidates appointed from the waiting list or had not earlier approached this court yet given benefit of revised marks in the trade test or ignored the required passing marks in the trade test then their order of appointment needs to be reviewed. However, if a decision is taken to discontinue them, it would be after an opportunity of hearing. If any candidate is appointed though secured less than the cut off marks then there would be no justification to continue him but, again, it would be done after affording them an opportunity of hearing. Aforesaid issue is decided accordingly.
Issue No.9 -
It is alleged that certain petitioners were there in the litigation in the case of Nirmal Kumar Jain (supra) and in connected petitions yet not given benefit of the directions issued in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (supra) to the extent it was made applicable. This is in regard to the condition to possess driving licence while applying for the post of Conductor.
Learned counsel for respondents submit that those governed by the judgment in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (supra) and were petitioners therein or in the case of Nirmal Kumar Jain (supra) have been extended benefit, if they were not in possession of driving licence while applying for the post of Conductor. It was applied only for those who had challenged the aforesaid condition.
I have considered the submissions. The judgment in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (supra) is very clear, wherein, while issuing directions in regard to the condition to possess driving licence and revised criteria for trade test, it was applied to the petitioners therein and who were there in the earlier litigation in the case of Nirmal Kumar Jain (supra). Respondents have accepted the aforesaid thus, if any of the petitioners who was there in the earlier litigation in the case of Nirmal Kumar Jain or Prem Prakash Sharma (supra) then they would be entitled to the benefit of revised criteria as laid down in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (supra). The issue is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioners. If any of the candidates secured required cut off marks then he would be entitled for appointment.
Issues No.10 to 16 -
The issues No.10 to 16 are either stand decided while deciding the earlier issues or are not pressed thus need no elaboration and decision as agreed by both the parties.
With the aforesaid, all the issues raised by the petitioners in reference to the earlier recruitment to the post of Conductor, Driver etc, the writ petitions and review petitions are disposed of with the directions to the respondents for compliance within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
NEW RECRUITMENT It is a case where after the earlier recruitment pursuant to the advertisement in the year 2010, respondents issued another advertisement in the year 2012 for filling the posts of Driver, Conductor etc. Certain issues have been raised in reference to the new recruitment thus are decided by this common judgment itself.
1. The new recruitment provides award of bonus marks based on experience. Challenge to the aforesaid has been made by the candidates who have either been denied benefit of experience or challenged the condition showing it to be discriminatory in nature.
Learned counsel for respondents state that benefit of bonus marks towards experience would not be awarded as policy decision has been taken to withdraw it.
In view of submission of learned counsel for the respondents, challenge to the award of bonus marks no more survives as it has been withdrawn.
2. Second issue pertains to driving licence by those who have applied for the post of Conductor.
Learned counsel for petitioners submit that amendment in the Regulations has not been made thus condition to possess driving licence cannot be imposed.
Learned counsel for respondents, on the other hand, submit that condition to possess driving licence would not be imposed in the new recruitment but if Regulations are amended then those appointed on the post of Conductor will give an undertaking to possess driving licence within a period of two years from the date of notification of amended Regulations. By the aforesaid, they would be kept at par with earlier appointees.
I have considered the submission and find that respondents themselves have done away with the condition to possess driving licence by those applied for the post of Conductor thus, presently, aforesaid condition would not be imposed. The respondent Corporation would however be at liberty to impose such a condition if, finally, Regulations are amended. If any undertaking is required as was then in the previous litigation in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (supra) then Corporation would be at liberty to impose such a condition but merely that certain candidates are not in possession of driving licence at present, would not be debarred to apply and compete in the selection for the post of Conductor.
3. The third issue pertains to the qualification. It is submitted that under the Act, required qualification is only VIIIth pass. Respondent Corporation put a condition to possess Secondary Certificate ignoring the aforesaid. I find that the condition to possess required qualification should be as per the Regulations. If Regulations provide Secondary to be minimum qualification, then the aforesaid condition would be adhered to. This is more so when it has not been challenged. If Regulations itself provide qualification of VIIIth then the Corporation will not debar the candidate(s) in absence of the qualification of Secondary, if he is otherwise in possession the qualification of Class VIIIth pass and other condition of eligibility.
With the aforesaid, all the writ petitions pertaining to new recruitment so as the stay applications are disposed of.
In view of the directions and observations made above, review petitions preferred by the respondent Corporation and private petitioners also stand disposed of.
(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