Ram Kumar Sharma Son Of Shri ... vs Rajasthan State Road Transport ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 276 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

               D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 556/2020

                                       In

                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24/2020

Ram Kumar Sharma Son of Shri Damodar Sharma, Resident of
Village Daupura, Tehsil Basedi, 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. Anit Jain, Advocate through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rewar Mal, Advocate through VC

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-556/2020]

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 could 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 appointed was

as conductor and not on subsequent post of driver. Therefore,

there is no merit in the appeal.

Appeal is dismissed.

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

Mohita/3

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)