D.P.GUPTA, ACTG C.J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has come up before us on a reference made by a learned Single Judge of this Court.
(2.) THE petitioner entered Government service in the State of Rajasthan on September 1, 1954 arid after working on various posts he came to be appointed as Assistant traffic Inspector in the Roadways Department by order dated January 17, 1961 After he was selected for the aforesaid post by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, he was confirmed in the said post on August 11, 1964. While the petitioner was working in the Roadways Department of the State Government, the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called 'the Corporation') was constituted and the services of the petitioner along with several other employees were placed on deputation at the disposal of the Corporation. The order of the State Government, by which the services of the petitioner and others were placed at the disposal of the Corporation specifically provided that for the duration of the period of deputation of Such employees to the Corporation, supernumerary posts shall be Sanctioned separately in the directorate of Transport for retaining the lien of the petitioner and other employees, who were similarly sent to the Corporation. On April 15, 1966 the State Government issued a circular inviting option from such employees whose services were placed at the disposal of the Corporation on deputation. Another circular was subsequently issued by the State Government on February 1, 1967 again inviting option from such employees and it was notified that the employees could exercise their option within a period of one month of the receipt of the notice and if any employee failed to exercise his option within the specified time, then it shall be deemed that the employee has given the option for returning to the service of the State Government. It is not disputed that the petitioner did not exercise any option. As a matter of fact he sought certain clarifications. It was also clearly mentioned in the circular dated February 1, 1967 that if the employee failed to give his Option within the specified time, but desired to have some clarification or submitted a representation the period of option shall not be considered to have been extended on any such ground. The petitioner's case was considered by the Absorption Committee constituted by this State Government and by the order dated December 13, 1967 the petitioner was ordered to be absorbed as a Store keeper, Family Planning in the Directorate of Medical and Health Services. The petitioner submitted a protest on the ground that the persons junior to him as Assistant Traffic Inspectors were absorbed on the posts of Motor Vehicles Sub -Inspectors in the Transport Department, on which posts the lien of the petitioner and such other persons was kept by creation of supernumerary posts but the petitioner was not so absorbed. It appears that the petitioners's representation in this respect was not accepted and at one stage his services were actually terminated. But then on a further reconsideration, the State Government by its letter dated December 4, 1963 directed the petitioner to join his duties on the post of Upper Division Clerk, Family Planning, under the Director. Medical and Health Services, within three days of the receipt of that letter, failing which his services would be terminated. The petitioner thereupon joined the post of Upper Division Clerk in the Directorate of Medical and Health Services and according to him he was ill for quite a long time and as such remained on leave for quite some time.
(3.) IN the present writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that the persons junior to him in the former Roadways Department were observed on the post of Motor Vehicles Sub Inspector in the Directorate of Transport, while the petitioner was declared surplus, and was absorbed as the clerk in the Medical &, Health Department. Three of such persons, who have been absorved in the Transport Department as Motor Vehicles Sub -Inspectors, have been joined as respondents. Musaddilal, Satya Prakash Sharma, and Hari Narayan respondents were also holding the posts of Assistant Traffic Inspectors in the Corporation at the time when they were reverted and they were absorbed in the Transport Department of the State Government, as Motor Vehicles Sub -Inspectors, Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioaer was discriminated against, in as much as although his juniors have been absorbed in the Transport Department itself, as Sub -Inspectors, on the basis of supernumerary posts created to maintain the lien of all such persons including the petitioner, yet the case of the petitioner was not considered for absorption in the Transport Department itself but he was sent to the Medical and Health Department as an Upper Division Clerk.;