HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13044/2021

Sajjan Kumar Yadav Son Of Shri Mahaveer Prasad, Aged About

49 Years, R/o Dhani Navodi, Village And Post Divrala, Distt. Sikar

(Raj.)

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

Rajasthan State Roadways Transport Corporation,

Through Its Managing Director, Chomu House, Jaipur

(Rajasthan).

2.

The Executive Director (Mechanical), Rajasthan State

Roadways Transport Corporation, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

3.

The Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Roadways Transport

Corporation, Sri Madhopur Depot, District Sikar (Raj.).

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya

For Respondent(s)

:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Order

18/11/2021

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the

Duty Chart dated 14.10.2021 issued by the respondent-

Corporation whereby, the petitioner has been asked to discharge

duty as Driver.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after his

appointment in the year 2005, he is continuously working as

Conductor and now, against his wishes, he cannot be asked to

discharge the duty of Driver. He, therefore, prays for quashing the

Duty Chart dated 14.10.2021.

(2 of 4)

[CW-13044/2021]

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

record.

Indisputably, the petitioner applied for appointment in

pursuance of advertisement No.201/204-2005 issued by the

respondent-Corporation whereby, applications were invited for

preparing a Panel for appointment as Driver-cum-Conductor in

view of potential requirement of Drivers. The petitioner has been

selected and appointed in pursuance thereof. Since, the initial

appointment of the petitioner is from the Panel prepared for

Driver-cum-Conductor, he cannot raise any grievance if he is

required to discharge duty as Driver, though, not required till date.

The petitioner has not disputed that he possesses the eligibility for

driving a vehicle. It is trite law that if a persons accepts

appointment with eyes wide open to the terms of appointment, he

cannot be permitted to deny a part of it having taken advantage of

the rest. The Hon’ble Apex Court of India has, in case of State of

Punjab & Ors. versus Dhanjit Singh Sandhu-(2014) 15 SCC

144, held as under:-

“22. The doctrine of “approbate and reprobate” is only a

species of estoppel, it implies only to the conduct of

parties. As in the case of estoppel it cannot operate

against the provisions of a statute. (vide C.I.T. vs. Mr. P.

Firm Muar, AIR 1965 SC 1216).

23. It is settled proposition of law that once an order has

been passed, it is complied with, accepted by the other

party and derived the benefit out of it, he cannot

challenge it on any ground. (Vide Maharashtra State Road

Transport Corporation vs. Balwant Regular Motor Service,

Amravati & Ors., AIR 1969 SC 329). In R.N. Gosain vs.

(3 of 4)

[CW-13044/2021]

Yashpal Dhir, (1992) 4 SCC 683, this Court has observed

as under:–

“10.Law does not permit a person to both

approbate and reprobate. This principle is based

on the doctrine of election which postulates that

no party can accept and reject the same

instrument and that “a person cannot say at one

time that a transaction is valid and thereby obtain

some advantage, to which he could only be

entitled on the footing that it is valid, and then

turn round and say it is void for the purpose of

securing some other advantage.”

24. This Court in Sri Babu Ram vs. Sri Indra Pal Singh

(Dead) by LRs., (1998) 6 SCC 358, and P.R. Deshpande

vs. Maruti Balram Haibatti, (1998) 6 SCC 507, Court has

observed that:

“8. The doctrine of election is based on the rule of

estoppel- the principle that one cannot approbate

and reprobate inheres in it. The doctrine of

estoppel by election is one of the species of

estoppel in pais (or equitable estoppel) w