- (1.) BY these petitions, the petitioners have challenged the notices seeking to terminate their services during probation period from the post of Conductors from respondent RSRTC vide Annex.6 dated 30/9/2013.
(2.) THE petitioners were appointed in the selection process undertaken in pursuance of Advertisement dated 23/3/2012, in which on account of revision of merit list, upon change of answer key on the basis of expert opinion, it is stated that 56 new persons came in the revised merit list above the present petitioners and the petitioners were pushed down in merit list and on account of such revision of marks/merit, the impugned termination notices were served upon them after they had already served for 3 -4 months on probation, to make way for the new appointees, who found place in merit list upon revision of the merit list and those persons had already been also offered appointment vide order dated 20/9/2013. Upon issuance of notices of the writ petition, the respondent RSRTC has filed reply to the writ petition with which a copy of the judgment of coordinate bench of this Court at Jaipur in the case of Bhag Prakash & Ors. vs. RSRTC & Ors. - SBCWP No.18940/2013 & four others writ petitions decided on 20/12/2013 has been produced by the respondent in which after quoting the observation of earlier judgment of the same bench in the case of Hemendra Kumar Jangid & ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. - SBCWP No.15788/2013 dated 19/12/2013, the learned Single Judge (Hon'ble Justice M.N.Bhandari) decided the batch of writ petitions pertaining to same selection process of conductors of 2012 in the following manner and with the following directions: - "1 -This court is not inclined to cause interference in the impugned show cause notice for termination or an order of termination of services of the petitioners, if any. 2 -The petitioners were appointed and continued in service and appointment and continuance was not to their default, however, this court cannot ignore revision of merit list and consequence thereof. To balance the equities, a direction is given to the respondents to allow the petitioners to appear in the next selection without debarring them on the ground of age. 3 -Before parting with the judgment, it would be necessary to direct that respondents not to make appointments in future to any post unless they first call for the objections to the questions and answers and finalise it followed by publication of select list. This is to avoid type of litigation brought herein."
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent ­ RSRTC, Mr. Harish Purohit submitted that the present writ petitions also deserve to be disposed of in same terms. He also drew the attention of the Court towards the order passed by this Court in the case of Sandeep Kumar Babal vs. Sate of Rajasthan & ors. - SBCWP No. 1460/2013 decided on 14/5/2014 in which relying upon the order of Division Bench in the case of Vinita Sharma & ors. Vs State of Rajasthan & ors. - DB Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 207/2013 decided on 2/8/2013, this Court dismissed the writ petition.;