Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ram Gopal Sharma vs R.S.R.T.C on 22 March, 2017
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 2296 / 1996
Ram Gopal Sharma S/o Shri Shyam Lalji Sharma, aged about 39
years, resident of 213, Adarsh Nagar, Frontier Colony, Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Jaipur, Parivahan
Marg, Jaipur through its Chairman.
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N.K. Maloo, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Vishnu Bohra For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vishnu Shankar Badaya on behalf of Ms. Sumati Bishnoi _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA CAV JUDGMENT REPORTABLE 22nd /03/2017 The case in hand has a meandering history of facts. It suffices to state that the petitioner had applied for the post of Traffic Inspector under a common advertisement issued for the post of Traffic Inspector and Assistant Traffic Inspector. After selection the merit list was prepared separately for both the posts. The petitioner was initially placed in the merit list of Assistant Traffic Inspector at S.No.7 and was appointed on 02.03.1979 and was thereafter confirmed on the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector on 07.11.1981. There was a common order of appointment of Traffic Inspector and Assistant Traffic Inspector. In the said list, one Banshidhar who was at S.No.24 in the merit list and one Vijay Singh who was not on the merit list, were later on appointed on (2 of 8) [CW-2296/1996] 16.07.1980 on the post of Traffic Inspector denying the petitioner's claim for appointment on the post of Traffic Inspector.
2. When the petitioner submitted a representation, both Banshidhar and Vijay Singh were reverted, against which Banshidhar preferred a writ petition which was allowed on 27.08.1990 and he was restored on the post of Traffic Inspector. The petitioner submitted a detailed representation on 08.03.1990 claiming that he should also be appointed as Traffic Inspector, which was placed before the Service Selection Board, who in its meeting dated 04.09.1991 examined the same and found that the petitioner was entitled to be appointed as Traffic Inspector. Accordingly, the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 05.09.1991 as Traffic Inspector with effect from 16.07.1980 i.e. from the date when Banshidhar and Vijay Singh were appointed.
3. It appears that vide order dated 01.02.1992, the petitioner was again reverted from the post of Traffic Inspector to the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector, against which the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing No.7929/1992, wherein an interim order was passed and ultimately the same was allowed vide order dated 17.02.1994 and his order of reversion dated 01.02.1992 was declared illegal and accordingly quashed directing that the respondents shall furnish copies of representation of other persons to the petitioner and will give him an opportunity of personal hearing. It was further directed that after hearing all the parties, a fresh decision be taken in the matter of appointment on the post of Traffic Inspector which remained vacant in the year 1980. The above exercise was directed to be completed within a period of (3 of 8) [CW-2296/1996] two months. It was also directed that if the claim of the petitioner is found to be genuine, then he would also be entitled for further promotion and pay fixation and if it is found that he is not the rightful person, no recovery shall be made from his pay. On 05.12.1994, the Managing Director found the petitioner not eligible for appointment as Traffic Inspector but no reasons were given and he was allowed to continue on the said post till next meeting of Service Selection Board. On 20.04.1996 the petitioner was ultimately ordered to be reverted from the said post but no reference was given with regard to the earlier orders. The petitioner was not even given an opportunity of hearing, as directed by the Court earlier. On perusal of the order dated 20.04.1996, it is seen that the same was on basis of proceedings of meeting of Service Selection Board dated 19.04.1994.
4. Challenging the said order dated 20.04.1996, the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner submitting that the order has been passed only with regard to the petitioner reverting him to the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector. The order of this Court dated 17.02.1994 (supra) directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner as well as of others was not considered jointly. While all the other persons who were working on the post of Traffic Inspector were much below in merit in comparison to the petitioner, the said Banshidhar and Vijay Singh were allowed to continue as Traffic Inspectors. While the writ petition was pending, the petitioner preferred a representation on 12.01.2004 explaining the correct factual position. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director afforded him an (4 of 8) [CW-2296/1996] opportunity of personal hearing on 13.01.2004 and directed the General Manager(Legal) to submit his report after examining the matter of the petitioner. A report was submitted and on the basis of the same, an order was passed on 05.02.2004 treating the petitioner as Traffic Inspector with effect from 16.07.1980. Consequently the petitioner joined on the post of Traffic Inspector on 05.02.2004 itself and his pay was accordingly fixed in the pay scale of Traffic Inspector and the name of the petitioner was also shown at S.No.5 in the provisional seniority list. It is further submitted by the petitioner that while his case was under
consideration for promotion to the post of Depot Manager, he was served with an order on 23.10.2004, whereby the earlier order dated 05.02.2004 was rescinded and he was again reverted to the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector. The petitioner by way of an amendment in the writ petition has assailed the said order of reversion also.
5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the orders of reversion on the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector have been passed without following the principles of natural justice and even no reasons have been given for reverting the petitioner. Thus, the respondents are guilty of playing with the career of the petitioner right from the year 1979. It is submitted that while the petitioner has been reverted to the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector, the said two persons namely Banshidhar and Vijay Singh were further promoted on the post of Depot Manager.
6. Learned counsel points out that this Court vide order dated 19.01.2010 noted the respondents' contention that the (5 of 8) [CW-2296/1996] petitioner had not applied for the post of Traffic Inspector and in his application he requested for appointment only on the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector and thus there was no occasion to appoint him on the post of Traffic Inspector even if he was higher in merit. Accordingly, the Court passed an order directing the respondents to place on record a copy of the application form of the petitioner.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents also contends the same submission stating that Banshidhar and Vijay Singh had applied for the post of Traffic Inspector and Assistant Traffic Inspector and on account of certain vacancies of Traffic Inspector remaining unfilled, both of them were appointed on the post of Traffic Inspector while the petitioner had not applied for the post of Traffic Inspector and therefore there was no reason to appoint him on the said post and inter se merit would not have any criteria. In such circumstances, the action of the respondents of reverting him time and again cannot be held to be bad. The reply is supported with an affidavit of one Shri Narendra Pareek S/o Shri B.S. Pareek, holding the post of Legal Assistant in RSRTC at that time.
8. In terms of the order of this Court supra, an affidavit has again been filed by one Shri Vimal Kumar Jain, Executive Director(Admn.), RSRTC, Head Office, Jaipur giving the record relating to selection. On perusal thereof, the call letter for A.T.I. interview seem to have been issued on 28.11.1978 to petitioner Ram Gopal Sharma, whose name has been shown at S.No.23 of the list, but there is no call letter issued to Banshidhar or Vijay (6 of 8) [CW-2296/1996] Singh.
9. Yet another affidavit has been filed by one Shri Sitaram, Legal Assistant, RSRTC on 23.02.2010 placing on record a copy of the application form of the petitioner. On perusal of the documents, it is seen that the application of Ram Gopal Sharma is only for the post of Traffic Inspector and the post of 'Sahayak Yatayat Nirikshak' (Assistant Traffic Inspector) has been deleted in the form. It is also seen that the merit of the petitioner has been mentioned in the form as 20/ATI, while the form of Banshidhar Sharma shows that he had struck off the option for Traffic Inspector and had only prayed for appointment as Assistant Traffic Inspector. However his candidature has been considered for Assistant Traffic Inspector with No.2276 and for Traffic Inspector with No.6108. His application form clearly shows that it was for Assistant Traffic Inspector (ATI). The application form of Vijay Singh has not been produced. Thus the stand which the respondents have taken in their reply is false from the documents which they themselves have placed on record. On the other hand, it is seen that while the petitioner had applied for only appointment on the post of Traffic Inspector, Banshidhar had only applied for the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector but RSRTC has appointed Banshidhar as Traffic Inspector while the petitioner has been denied the higher post on the ground that he had never applied for the post of Traffic Inspector. Thus the facts on record have been found to be contrary to the stand taken in the affidavit by the respondents.
(7 of 8) [CW-2296/1996]
10. Apart from the fact that the orders have been passed without following the principles of natural justice, factually too, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner had applied for the post of Traffic Inspector and admittedly the persons junior to him, namely Banshidhar and Vijay Singh have been allowed to continue on the post of Traffic Inspector who were further promoted on the post of Depot Manager, the petitioner is also entitled to be given the similar benefits. More so, such an order was already passed by this Court on 17.02.1994 while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7929/1992.
11. In the circumstances, this Court finds that the petitioner has been subjected to unnecessary harassment and has wrongly been reverted. This Court strongly deprecates the manner and practice adopted by the respondent RSRTC in filing false affidavits before this Court. However, taking into consideration the fact that much time has gone by and the concerned Officials who have submitted their affidavits in support of the reply where a contention contrary to the record was taken, may have attained the age of superannuation, the matter is put to rest at this stage.
12. In the circumstances, the order of reversion of the petitioner on the ground that he had never applied for the post of Traffic Inspector cannot be allowed to be sustained and the orders of reversion passed from time to time i.e. 05.12.1994, 20.04.1996 and 23.10.2004 would all stand quashed and set aside with directions that the petitioner shall be given all consequential benefits of promotion from the date Banshidhar was granted the same, and his pay and allowance be revised on actual basis and (8 of 8) [CW-2296/1996] all the arrears be calculated and released in favour of the petitioner within a period of three months from today along with interest @ 9% p.a.
13. It is however made clear that services of Banshidhar and Vijay Singh would not be affected by any observations made in the order as they are not party to the present writ petition.
14. With these observations, the writ petition stands allowed.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA)J. KKC/(Reserved)