HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5869/2018

1.

Ramavtar Jat S/o Shri Jagdish Jat, Resident Of

Yadagarpura Post Garudwasi, Tehsil Kotkhawda, District

Jaipur.

2.

Dhanna Ram Saini S/o Shri Shrichand, Resident Of Vpo

Khadra, Tehsil Neemka Thana, District Sikar.

----Petitioners

Versus

1.

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Through Its

Chairman Cum Managing Director, Parivahan Marg, Head

Office, Jaipur Rajasthan

2.

Executive Director Traffic, Rajasthan State Road Transport

Corporation, Parivahan Marg, Head Office, Jaipur

Rajasthan

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Kailash Choudhary

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Vinayak Kumar Joshi

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

27/09/2021

Counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue involved in

this writ petition has been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of

this Court in the matter of Karan Singh & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan

State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No. 13359/2017) where-in on 09.12.2019 following order

was passed;

“This writ petition has been filed by the

petitioners aggrieved against the rejection list dated

28.08.2017 (Annex.-18) and/or any other order

rejecting the candidature of the petitioners for their

selection and appointment on the post of Conductor

pursuant to the original advertisement and

consequential relief.

(2 of 5)

[CW-5869/2018]

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits

that the issue raised in the present writ petition is

squarely covered by order of this Court in Sait

Christy v. RSRTC & Anr.: SBCW No. 21164/2017 and

other connected matters, decided on 04.04.2019 at

Jaipur Bench and that review petition filed by the

Corporation qua the said order also stands rejected.

In the case of Sait Christy (supra), a

coordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench, inter

alia, observed and directed as under:-

“This Court finds that

once

the

order

of

termination of services of

similarly situated person

Hanuman Singh has not

been upheld by the Apex

Court and decision of the

Division Bench of this Court

has been set aside, the

petitioners also become

entitled for same relief, as

has been extended to

Hanuman Singh.

This Court further

finds that though, initially

the order of termination of

Hanuman Singh and present

petitioners was passed on

27th May, 2013, the

respondent

Corporation

again included the name of

Hanuman Singh in the list of

552 candidates and his

termination has been found

to be illegal in second round

of litigation, as decided by

this Court in the case of

Avinash Sharma (supra).

This

Court

finds

substance in the submission

of learned counsel that the

present petitioners were

duly appointed initially and

only due to the order in the

writ petition, in the case of

Prem

Prakash

Sharma

(supra), services of the

petitioners were wrongly

terminated vide order dated

27th May, 2013, as the

petitioners are said to have

not availed any remedy or

challenged the criteria prior

to 9th November, 2011.

This Court finds that in

final view taken by the Court

in the case of Avinash

Sharma (supra), list of 552

(3 of 5)

[CW-5869/2018]

candidates,

who

were

sought to be removed from

service due to revised list,

has not been approved by

the

Court

and

the

candidates,

who

were

already appointed, like the

petitioners,

have

been

allowed to continue and

accordingly, the present

petitioners are also required

to be considered for their

appointment and the order

dated 27th May, 2013 is

declared bad, qua the

petitioners terminating their

services.

Accordingly,

the

present writ petitions are

allowed. The petitioners are

held

entitled

for

appointment on the post of

Conductor, however, no

arrears will be paid to them.

The petitioners will also be

entitled to the s