Govind Mathur, J. - (1.) BY an order dated 18.1.2006 an appointment was given to the Petitioner on compassionate grounds as Conductor in the pay scale of Rs. 3050 -4590. The appointment so made was on probation for a term of two years. In pursuant to the order aforesaid the Petitioner after submitting required medical certificate joined duties on 24.1.2006. He acquired necessary training from 24.1.2006 to 6.2.2006. From 13.2.2006 to 19.2.2006 training was also imparted to him at Headquarters of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and thereafter he was directed to resume duties at Pali Depot. However, he failed to do so. Certain time was again allowed to the Petitioner to join the duties and also to submit required licence and badge for holding the post of Conductor. On 2.5.2006 the Petitioner made a request to the Respondents to allow him to utilise his duties in office instead of working as Conductor. The Petitioner was advised by the Respondent that his 2 appointment was made as Conductor, therefore, he is required to resume on duties on the post aforesaid only. ON 14.7.2006 the Petitioner's mother requested for providing office duties to the Petitioner, acting upon that the Respondents directed the Petitioner to resume duties immediately and to get himself medically examined by a medical board to establish that he is not a person fit to hold the post of Conductor. The Petitioner neither choose to report on duties nor produced himself before the medical board. In such circumstances under an order dated 20.1.2007 the Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation held that the Petitioner is not interested in service and, therefore, discontinued from the same. Being aggrieved by that, this petition for writ is preferred in the year 2010.
(2.) THE only argument advanced by counsel for the Petitioner is that no notice as required under the standing orders was given by the Respondents before terminating the Petitioner from service. From the facts stated above, it is apparent that as a matter of fact the Respondents did not terminate the Petitioner but he himself abandoned the service. He was required to join duties after completion of requisite training but he did not choose to do so. Several opportunities were given to him to report on duty subsequent thereto also but he failed to avail the same. A direction was also given to the Petitioner to undergo requisite medical test but for that too he was not ready. In such circumstances the abandonment from service is apparent and, therefore, no need was there to give any notice to the Petitioner before issuing the order impugned dated 20.1.2007.
(3.) THE petition for writ is dismissed.;