Abrar Husen Son Of Shri Intjar ... vs Rajasthan State Road Transport ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 274 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

                 D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 555/2020

                                         In

                   S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9/2020

Abrar Husen Son Of Shri Intjar Husen, Resident of Kasai Pada,
Dholpur, District Dholpur (Raj.) At Present Working At Dholpur
Depot.
                                                                     ----Appellant
                                     Versus
1.       Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Pariwahan
         Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur Through Its Chairman Cum
         Managing Director.
2.       The Executive Director (Traffic), Rajasthan State Road
         Transport Corporation, Chomu House, C-Scheme, Jaipur
         (Raj.).
3.       Chief     Manager,       Rajasthan          State        Road   Transport
         Corporation, Dholpur Depot, Dholpur (Raj.).
                                                                  ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anil Jain, Advocate through VC For Respondent(s) : None

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

Judgment / Order

12/01/2022

Office objection is overruled.

Heard on admission.

Challenge to the order passed by learned Single Judge is on

the ground that as the appellant was appointed to work as

conductor, he could not be compelled to work as driver.

Learned Single Judge, taking into consideration the terms of

the advertisement, the post for which the advertisement was

(2 of 2) [SAW-555/2020]

issued and that there was specific condition that those appointed

as driver may be asked to work as conductor, has come to the

conclusion that the appellant has no case.

The argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that the

appellant having been asked to work as conductor could not be

asked to work as driver. This argument is misconceived in law. The

advertisement shows that the advertisement was for appointment

to the post of driver. The eligibility qualifications which were

prescribed in the advertisement were only for driver. Clause 3 of

the advertisement clearly stated that in addition to discharge of

duty as driver the appointed candidate would be asked to work as

conductor also. This clearly shows that the appointment was on

substantive post of driver alone. The appellant accepted

appointment with open eyes. Merely because he worked as

conductor for sometime, he could not claim that he should be

continued only as the conductor because his initial appointment

was as conductor and not on substantive post of driver.

Therefore, there is no merit in the appeal.

One additional argument raised by the learned counsel for

the appellant is that an option was taken from the appellant and

he had opted for the post of conductor.

We, however, do not find that there is any order excepting

the option, but, on the other hand, the authority asked the

appellant to work as driver only which is the post on which he was

substantively appointed.

Appeal is dismissed.

(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J

Mohita/2

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)