- (1.) THIS bunch of cases has come up before this Court on account of termination of services of the petitioners, who were appointed as Conductors in the respondent RSRTC, a Corporation incorporated under the provisions of The Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950. The facts illustratively are taken from SBCWP No.6757/2013 ­ Panne Singh & ors. vs. RSRTC & Ors.
(2.) IN the selection process initiated by the respondent RSRTC in pursuance of advertisement Annex.1 No.219/2009 -10, in all 793 posts were advertised for different categories, namely; 190 post of Drivers, 472 posts of Conductors, 12 posts of Artisan Gr.II and 119 posts of Artisan Gr.III. The petitioners were appointed after a litigative battle in this Court. The impugned termination order is dated 27/5/2013 passed by the Executive Director (Traffic) and the said termination order was passed after giving a show cause notice to the petitioner on 11/1/2013 in which the petitioner was called upon to show cause giving reference to the previous litigation of the said selection process decided by this Court that the petitioner may produce proof of the fact that he did not possess Driving Licence of Heavy Vehicle and also that he had challenged the said condition of requirement of possessing such Driving Licence prior to 9/11/2011, which is the date of judgment of coordinate bench of this Court at Jaipur in SBCWP No.13855/2011 ­ Prem Prakash Sharma & Ors. vs. RSRTC & Ors. decided on 9/11/2011. The petitioner furnished an explanation and from the said reply, apparently, it appears that he satisfied both these conditions of not possessing the Heavy Driving Licence and also that he had challenged the said condition by way of his writ petition No.10019/2011, which was filed on 17/10/2011, prior to 9/11/2011 and, therefore, his services could not be terminated. However, the services of the petitioner came to be terminated vide impugned order dated 27/5/2013 (Annex.16) which was passed in respect of 36 persons including the present petitioner at serial no. 16 ­ Shri Panney Singh s/o Jai Singh. While issuing notices to the respondents, a coordinate bench of this Court stayed the effect and operation of the termination order dated 27/5/2013 and the petitioners are, thus, still continuing in the said service of Conductors. The respondent RSRTC has filed a reply to the writ petition and has contested the writ petitions through Shri P.R.Singh, Addl. Advocate General and standing Counsel for the RSRTC and on behalf of petitioners, arguments were led by Ms. Nupur Bhati, Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit with the host of learned counsels.
(3.) THE selection process of Drivers and Conductors of respondent RSRTC has a statutory as well as litigation background, as aforesaid, and a brief look at both of them is necessary for resolving the present dispute.;