Hanuman Singh vs The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Another

Amitava Roy, C.J.—For the order proposed to be passed, it is not considered necessary to issue formal notice. The judgment and order dated 31.5.2013 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9185/2013 is under challenge.

The facts in brief, necessary to be noticed for the disposal of the instant appeal, are that the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur (for short, hereafter referred to as ''RSRTC/Corporation'') had, in the year 2010, published an advertisement for filling up inter alia the post of Conductor under it. One of the conditions of eligibility for the said post was possession of driving licence of heavy motor vehicle. The selection process comprised of two segments, (i) written examination and (ii) trade test. The petitioner though participated, was eventually declared to be unsuccessful and his name did not figure in the final select list. He alongwith others approached this Court with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14595/2011 (Sheesh Ram & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr.) assailing the stipulation of possessing driving licence for heavy vehicles by the candidates for the post of Conductor as a norm of eligibility. It was contended that the candidates for the post of conductor were to be subjected to written examination and interview only and not to the trade test which comprised of driving skill.

At the same time, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2183/2011 (Narpat Dan Vs. RSRTC & Anr.), this Court at its Principal Seat directed the results to be revised holding that the cut off marks for the reserved category candidates could not be higher than that fixed for the general category candidates. Final results came to be declared on 23.9.2011. It was thereafter that on 9.11.2011, a batch of writ petitions, lead case being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13855/2011 (Prem Prakash Sharma Vs. RSRTC & Anr.) was disposed of on the basis of the agreement between the parties by issuing, amongst others, the following direction (s):-

So far as trade test for the post of Conductor is concerned, it is no doubt true that 30 marks were allocated towards driving. The issue to possess driving licence has been decided by this court in the case of Nirmal Kumar Jain (supra) wherein, referring to the various provisions, this court came to the conclusion that amended Regulations cannot be given effect to unless they are notified in the official gazette. It was in reference to section 45 of the State Transport Corporation Act. Accordingly, the Corporation will consider the cases of the petitioners who appeared in the trade test without driving licence by taking their 20 marks in written paper in the trade test on proportionate basis on 50 marks. This is to ignore 30 marks for driving and to allow proportionate benefit on those marks. It is only for those who appeared in the trade test pursuant to interim order of this court either in the present writ petitions or the petitioners in the earlier writ petitions whether at Jaipur or Principal Seat, Jodhpur. This is to avoid multiplication of the litigation further. Accordingly, if a candidate has obtained 10 marks out of 20 in the trade test, proportionate calculation of 50 would be made by making it 25. Same formula would be applied for the petitioners based on the aforesaid.

As the above extract would reveal, the reallocation of marks as devised was limited only to the candidates who had appeared in the trade test without driving licence. The arrangement so provided was further clarified in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3600/2012 (Ramesh Chand Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors.) decided on 30.7.2012, as follows:-

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for parties and find that judgment in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (supra) was more or less on agreed terms. As per the judgment in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (supra), revised marks in the trade test was to be applied. The issue aforesaid was considered in the light of the condition to possess driving licence for the post of Conductor and it was only for those who were not in possession of driving licence. The challenge to the condition was thus not made by those who were having driving licence while applying for the post of Conductor. To clarify the aforesaid, the revised criteria for trade test was applicable only on those who approached this court on or before 9.11.2011 i.e. the date of judgment in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (supra) or in the earlier judgment in the case of Nirmal Kumar Jain (supra). The judgment aforesaid is not applicable to those who were in possession of driving licence so as Conductor''s licence while applying for the post of Conductor and failed to challenge it before appointment. If the Corporation has revised the marks of trade test even for those candidates who were in possession of driving licence and not earlier challenged the condition to possess driving licence while applying for the post of Conductor, are not to be governed by the directions in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (supra). It is for the reason that immediately after the judgment in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (supra), appointments were given thus whoever failed to approach this court before appointment cannot be governed by the earlier judgment due to delay and consent of the Corporation is limited to those earlier petitions. Accordingly, if the Corporation has revised the marks of the trade test for those who are in possession of driving licence while applying for the post of Conductor or for those who had not approached this court on or before 9.11.2011 and denied benefit of revised marks to the petitioners then their action becomes discriminatory in nature. Accordingly, they are directed either to withdraw benefit of revised marks in the trade test for those who were not before the court on or before 9.11.2011 and otherwise the condition was not challenged as candidates were in possession of driving licence. If the appointments are cancelled in those cases, it should be by applying principles of natural justice. In case, respondent Corporation takes a decision to continue them, then all the petitioners would be eligible for revised cut off marks in the trade test, who applied for the post of Conductor and if find more marks than of candidates appointed, would also be eligible for appointment. The limited application of earlier judgment with cut off date in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (supra) can be in view of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kailash Chand Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, Therein also, petitions filed after the earlier and main judgment were not entertained.

It was in clear terms specified that the revised criteria for trade test was applicable only to those who had approached this Court on or before 9.11.2011 i.e. before the date of judgment in Prem Prakash Sharma (supra) and was in fact for those who were not in possession of the driving licence. It was further elucidated that if the Corporation had revised the marks of trade test even for candidates who were in possession of driving licence and had not earlier challenged this condition while applying for the post of conductor would not be governed by the directions contained in Prem Prakash Sharma (supra). It was elaborated further that if the Corporation had revised the marks of the trade test for those who were in possession of the driving licence while applying for the post of Conductor or those who had not approached this Court on or before 9.11.2011, the benefit of revised marks of the trade test would be withdrawn.

The appellant who had meanwhile been appointed on 31.1.2012 in the post of Conductor, was thereafter served with a notice requiring him to furnish the proof that he did not possess the driving licence of a heavy motor vehicle at the relevant point of time or that he had challenged the criteria to this effect on or before 9.11.2011, whereafter on a consideration of the explanation submitted by him, his services were terminated on 27.5.2013, being adjudged to be beyond the purview of the benefit extended by Prem Prakash Sharma (supra) and Ramesh Chand Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors.(supra). Mr. Goyal has urged that as the appellant had before 9.11.2011 challenged the requirement of subjecting the candidates contending for the post of Conductor to the test to adjudge their driving skills, he was entitled to the benefit of revised marks in the trade test as provided in Prem Prakash Sharma (supra), and thus, the impugned judgment and order to the contrary, is liable to be interfered with.

The learned counsel has further urged that in any view of the matter as several posts of conductor under the Corporation are vacant as on date, on the basis of the appellant''s performance and the services rendered, an appropriate writ, order or direction ought to be issued to restore him in service with all consequential benefits.

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and on a consideration of the materials on record, more particularly the sequence of events witnessed by the decisions rendered in Prem Prakash Sharma (supra) and Ramesh Chand (supra), we do not feel persuaded to sustain these pleas. Having regard to the nature of the challenge, admittedly laid by the appellant/writ petitioner as referred to hereinabove, and the reliefs extended in Prem Prakash Sharma (supra) subject to the consciously prescribed requisites therefor, judicial intervention as sought for by the appellant is not warranted. The learned Single Judge, as the impugned judgment and order would reveal, after traversing the pleaded facts and on a consideration as well of the factual backdrop in details and the considerations on which the reliefs in Prem Prakash Sharma (supra) and Ramesh Chand (supra) had been granted, in our view, rightly refused to interfere with the termination of his services. At this point of time on the culmination of such repeated bouts of protracted litigation pertaining to a process for recruitment to public office, no further interjection is called for. Availability of vacancies as pleaded by the appellant is no ground to justify such a course. In the present intra court appeal, in view of the contextual facts, we do not find any convincing and cogent reason to differ from the reasonings and the conclusions recorded in the impugned judgment and order. The appeal lacks in merit and is dismissed. No costs. The stay application also stands rejected.