Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chandrabhan Singh vs The Rajasthan State Road ... on 10 October, 2023
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi, Yogendra Kumar Purohit
[2023:RJ-JD:34125-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 728/2023
1. Chandrabhan Singh S/o Shri Giriraj Singh, Aged About 48
Years, Resident Of Village Adhaya Kalan, District
Bharatpur (Raj.)
2. Pushpendra Singh S/o Shri Ramnarayan Singh, Aged
About 45 Years, Resident Of Village Uncha Nagla,
Bahnera, District Bharatpur (Raj.)
----Appellants
Versus
1. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Chomu
House, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur Through Its Chairman And
Managing Director.
2. The Executive Director (Administration), Raj. State Road
Transport Corporation, Parivahanmarg, Jaipur.
3. Chief Depot Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation, Bharatpur Depot, District Bharatpur.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Inderjeet Yadav
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suniel Purohit
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT
[2023:RJ-JD:34125-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-728/2023]
Judgment / Order
10/10/2023
This intra court appeal is preferred by the appellants being
aggrieved with the order dated 24.5.2023 passed by the learned
Single Judge in SBCWP No.12572/2022.
The brief facts of the case are that the appellants were
appointed on the post of Driver pursuant to the advertisement
issued by the RSRTC in the year 2004-05. Though the petitioners
were appointed on the post of Driver, but as per the condition of
the advertisement, they were asked to work as Conductors for
some time.
It is to be noticed that as per the condition of the
advertisement when the services of the appellants and the other
selected Drivers pursuant to the above-referred advertisement
were not regularized, some of them had approached this Court by
way of filing the writ petitions which came to be allowed and as
per the directions given by this Court, their services were
regularized on the post of Driver.
The appellants have filed the writ petition before this Court,
challenging the action of the RSRTC of asking them to work as
Drivers, on the ground that since the appellants have worked as
Conductors for a long time, the respondent - RSRTC cannot direct
them to work as Driver.
A similar controversy came before this Court at Jaipur Bench
in SBCWP No.24/2020 - Ram Kumar Sharma Vs. RSRTC & Ors.
and the learned Single Judge has dismissed the said writ petition
[2023:RJ-JD:34125-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-728/2023]
while holding that there is no illegality in the action of the RSRTC
to direct the persons appointed as Drivers to work as Driver even
though for quite some time, they had discharged their duties as
Conductors. The said decision of the learned Single Judge passed
in Ram Kumar Sharma's case (supra) was challenged before the
Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench by way of filing D.B.
Special Appeal Writ No.556/2020 and the Division Bench has
dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 12.01.2022 while
holding as under :-
"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."
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after
going through the material available on record, we are of the
opinion that the controversy involved in this appeal is squarely
covered by the decision rendered by this Court in SBCWP
No.24/2020 and DB Special Appeal Writ No.556/2020 and in such
circumstances, the learned Single Judge has committed no
[2023:RJ-JD:34125-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-728/2023]
illegality in dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioners
therein while relying on the aforesaid orders passed by this Court.
Hence, this appeal bereft of force is hereby dismissed.
(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J (VIJAY BISHNOI),J
118-msrathore/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
