This single-judge order dismissed writ petitions challenging the requirement of regularized Drivers returning to duty as drivers after performing conductor duties, relying on prior precedents regarding the essence of the appointment.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18793/2019
Versus
----Respondents
AND
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 378/2020
----Petitioners
Versus
(2 of 6)
[CW-18793/2019]
Chairman And Managing Director, Parivahan Marg, Choumu House, Jaipur.
----Respondents
AND
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2028/2020
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
(3 of 6)
[CW-18793/2019]
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
22/07/2022
The present writ petitions have been filed with the following submissions:
The petitioners were appointed on the post of Driver-cumConductor in pursuance to the advertisement No.201/2004-05 issued by the respondent-Corporation. The condition in the advertisement specified that after completion of three years of satisfactory service as a Driver, the employee would be regularized as a Driver with the Department. When the petitioners were not regularized after a period of three years, they preferred a writ petition before this Court which was allowed and subsequently, the services of the petitioners were regularized as a Driver.
The issue arose when the petitioners were called upon by the respondent-Corporation to perform the duties of a Driver and their names were included in the duty chart for the drivers. It is the contention of the petitioners that since their appointment, they have been performing the task of conductors only and therefore, they cannot now be asked to perform the duties of a driver. It has been submitted that although the petitioners had been appointed as Driver-cum-Conductor but since the date of appointment, they had been working as conductor only. It has further been submitted that no post such as ‘Driver-cum-Conductor’ is provided in the Rules governing the respondent Corporation and therefore, vide communication dated 06.05.2014 issued by the Department, an option was called from all the employees working as Drivercum-Conductor to opt as to on which post they wish to continue. It is the case of the petitioners that they filled their option at the
(4 of 6)
[CW-18793/2019]
relevant time and therefore, they cannot, now, be called upon to work as a Driver.
Per contra, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners had been regularized on the post of Driver and in terms of conditions of service, they are under an obligation to perform the duties of Driver. Even if it is assumed that they worked as conductors, the same cannot entitle them to work only as conductors for whole of their service period. Learned counsel for the respondents referred to condition No.3 of the advertisement wherein, it was specifically mentioned that the person to be appointed can additionally be required to perform the functions of a conductor also. Meaning thereby, the primary function was meant to be of a driver and the additional duties of a conductor could be assigned to those drivers, if required. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment passed in Ram Kumar Sharma Vs. R.S.R.T.C and Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.24/2020 , decided on 13.02.2020 and further affirmed by the Division Bench in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 556/2020; Ram Kumar Sharma Vs. R.S.R.T.C & Ors. vide order dated 12.01.2022.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
To adjudicate the controversy in question, clause No.3 and 4 of the advertisement would be relevant, which reads as under:
(5 of 6)
[CW-18793/2019]
izfrekg ds lkFk 150 :i;s izfrekg izksRlkgu jkf'k dh nj ls Hkqxrku fd;k tkosxk] fujUrj rhu o"kZ rd dk;Z larks"ktud <ax ls iw.kZ djus ij fuxe fu;ekuqlkj pkyd in ij fu;fer osru Ja`[kyk esa inLFkkfir fd;k tkosxkA "
A bare perusal of the above clause makes it clear that an
employee could have been regularized only after completion of three years of satisfactory service as a driver. It is an admitted position that the petitioners had been regularized at the relevant point of time on the post of Driver. Meaning thereby, the petitioners had worked as drivers for a period of three years prior to that. If the petitioners contend that they have never worked as drivers, their regularization in terms of the advertisement could never have been made, which would conclude into the fact that the regularization of the petitioners on the post of driver itself was bad. When controverted with this position, learned counsel for the petitioners was not in a position to make a specific statement as to whether the petitioners worked as conductor only since their date of appointment.
Moresoever, the earlier writ petitions were preferred by the petitioners for regularization on the post of Driver only and in pursuance to the orders passed in the earlier writ petitions, their services have been regularized on the post of Driver. Having once availed the benefit of regularization on the ground that they have been working as a Driver and are entitled to be regularized as such, the petitioners cannot now take a U-turn and contend that they never worked as a Driver. Furthermore, Condition No.3 makes it clear that the petitioners were appointed as Driver-cumConductor with the primary function of a Driver. Therefore, it is not open for the petitioners now to aver that they cannot be called upon to work as a Driver. The issue is therefore, squarely covered
(6 of 6)
[CW-18793/2019]
by the ratio as laid down in the case of Ram Kumar Sharma (supra) .
In Ram Kumar Sharma’s case (supra), it was held as under:
“In view thereof, no case for interference is made out as the petitioner is essentially a person who has been appointed as a Driver alone. There is no document on record to show that petitioner was ever selected or appointed as a Conductor alone. Moreover, the qualifications for the post of Conductor are separate from that of Driver. Hence, merely because work was being taken from him as a Conductor, it would not mean that he should be allowed to work as a Conductor for all times. The order dated 1st November, 2019 does not warrant any interference.”
In view of the ratio as laid down in Ram Kumar Sharma
Vs. R.S.R.T.C and Ors. and in view of the observations as made
above, the present writ petitions are dismissed being devoid of merits.
All pending applications also stand disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
Ashutosh-Abhishek-91, 93&94
3 issues framed by the court
Whether employees regularized as Drivers who performed conductor duties can be mandated to resume driver duties.
Whether mere performance of conductor duties entitles employees to work exclusively as conductors.
Whether doctrine of election bars petitioners from contesting regularization on the post of Driver after availing regularization benefits.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ram Kumar Sharma Vs. R.S.R.T.C and Ors.Relied on¶54
Ram Kumar Sharma Vs. R.S.R.T.C and Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.24/2020
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 556/2020; Ram Kumar Sharma Vs. R.S.R.T.C & Ors.Affirmed¶54
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 556/2020; Ram Kumar Sharma Vs. R.S.R.T.C & Ors.
Jetha Ram & Another
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation
Rekha Borana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
