- (1.) BY these writ petitions, selections to the post of Driver, Conductor, Artisan Gr II and III have been challenged. The challenge is on many grounds, however, the grounds of challenge have been confined only to certain issues. Accordingly, those are discussed.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for petitioners submit that while holding the trade test for the post of Conductor, one was asked to drive the vehicle and 30 marks out of 50 were provided for performance of driving. For the post of Conductor, one could not have been compelled to possess the driving licence. Aforesaid issue has already been decided by this court in the case of "Nirmal Kumar Jain & ors versus RSRTC & ors", SB Civil Writ Petition No.14710/2010 vide order dated 2.9.2011. Accordingly, trade test for the post of Conductor by providing 30 marks for driving becomes illegal. The other issue is in regard to minimum passing marks in the trade test. While issuing the advertisement or at any point of time, respondent ? Corporation never informed to any of the candidates that one is required to possess minimum 30 marks in the trade test. The aforesaid decision to provide minimum passing marks in the trade test was taken in the month of September, 2011 i.e. much after majority of candidates appeared in the trade test. The petitioners appeared in the trade test without knowing that they are required to possess minimum pass marks thus action of the respondents to provide such a condition in the midst of the selection and that too without information, is illegal. It is further urged that while declaring the result on the website, list indicate different marks then earlier indicated. Change in the marks of the candidates should not be permitted in the manner it has been done by the respondents. The Corporation should maintain same marks as obtained by the petitioners in their written examination and, for that purpose, if any petitioner makes a representation, he may be shown the copy of the written examination which may be of the trade test also . It is further urged that respondents, at the first instance, declared cut of marks for different categories. The cut off marks were revised by the respondents after the judgment in the case of "Narpat Dan Versus RSRTC & anr", SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2183/2011, decided on 31.5.2011 at Principal Seat, Jodhpur (reported in 2011 (3) WLC(Raj.) page 677, though prior to it, many of the petitioners having secured the cut off marks were considered eligible for the trade test and were allowed accordingly. Their candidature should not have been ignored thereafter. This is more so when they were not party in the case of Narpat Dan (supra) and otherwise the judgment in the case aforesaid does not indicate that those who have secured more marks than cut off marks should be ignored with the indication to provide new cut off marks. Respondents may accordingly be given directions to allow all those petitioners who appeared in the trade test after obtaining cut off marks prescribed initially and, if they fall in the over all merit, then to be given appointment. The issue of few petitioners is that they have been declared medically unfit and four candidates were declared qualified for the post of Artisan Gr III despite the fact that those candidates are not in possession of the required qualification in the field of body-building as they are having the qualification of Fitter thus need to be ignored and, for those who have been declared medically unfit, they may be ordered to be re-examined.
(3.) IT is lastly urged that those falling in the category of Special Backward Class (SBC) should be considered in the aforesaid category and may not be denied benefit of the category as while issuing advertisement, no such indication for reservation to SBC category was given. Accordingly, petitioners falling in the SBC category should not be ignored for grant of benefit of reservation to the extent of 1%. Learned counsel also submit that relaxation of marks has been given to the reserve caste candidate illegal on the minimum passing marks in the trade test, however, the aforesaid argument need not to be pressed if the requirement of minimum passing marks in the trade test is done away. Learned counsel for respondents submit that delay in making appointment is causing great hardship to the Corporation thus, on instructions received from the Chairman & Managing Director of the Corporation, who is present in person in the court, they agreed for resolution of certain issues in the following manner - 1. 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. 2. The respondent Corporation will not insist on the minimum pass marks in the trade test as it was not indicated in the advertisement or at any point of time by issuing corrigendum. The cases of the petitioners would be considered accordingly. This is in the background that decision in that regard should have been notified to all the candidates so as to perform well in the trade test and the Corporation has realised the aforesaid thus agrees to the prayer made by the petitioners. 3. So far as discrepancy in the marks of the written examination and of the trade test shown in the first list on the website and amended list is concerned, the Corporation agrees to show the copies to each of the petitioners who make representation and further to maintain the marks as obtained by them. First list issued on the website was having some discrepancy thus second list was issued indicating correct marks yet, if any of the petitioners is eager to see as to whether he has given the same marks, as obtained, copies would be shown to them. In case of any discrepancy, it would be rectified. 4. So far as the candidates who were allowed for the trade test pursuant to the first cut off marks indicated by the Corporation, their candidature would be considered based on the marks obtained in the written examination as well as trade test as indicated in above manner and if any of the candidates will find place in the merit, he would not be denied benefit of appointment. This is to avoid further litigation as otherwise those meritorious candidates were not party in the case of Narpat Dan (supra), however, appointment would be given only to those who stand in merit and not otherwise. 5. The issue of medical unfitness would be got examined again by referring the matters to the Superintendent, SMS Medical College & Hospital, Jaipur to have an opinion of the medical board. It is only for those petitioners who have the grievance and makes a representation within shortest possible time. 6. so far as inclusion of certain candidates in the select list for the post of Artisan Gr III though they are not in a possession of the required qualification in the discipline. Since the matter is sub judice before this court in regard to four candidates, a final decision for those candidates would be taken as and when verdict is given by this court in the pending litigation and, till then, such persons would not be given appointment. 7. It is agreed by the Corporation that those candidates entitled to the benefit of 1% reservation of SBC would be considered accordingly if required certificate has been enclosed along with the form. 8. Apart from the aforesaid, if any discrepancy exists declaring any candidate to be ineligible then a representation may be made by them within a period of two weeks then same would be examined by the Corporation within shortest possible time. It may, however, be made clear that the direction given by this court in the case of Nirmal Kumar Jain (supra) to possess the driving licence by the selected candidates on the post of Conductor within a period of two years from the date of Gazette Notification would be adhered to by all concerned. ;