[2025:RJ-JP:31240] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4527/2009 Brij Kishore S/o Shri Ramji Lal, aged about 34 years, Ex-Driver, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Vidhya Dhar Nagar Depot, Jaipur, resident of Village-Maive, Post-Morolli, Tehsil- Deeg, District- Bharatpur (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, through its Managing Director, Head Office, Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur. 2. Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Vidhya Dhar Nagar Depot, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Babu Lal Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.M. Bairwa HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 12/08/2025 1. To assail order dated 10.02.2009 passed by the Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC), Vidhya Dhar Nagar Depot, Jaipur whereby, service contract of the petitioner has been rescinded, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. 2. It has been contended by the petitioner that by virtue of entering into contract with respondent-Corporation, he was appointed initially for a period of one year vide order dated 14.10.2005. The aforesaid order also contains the conditions of contract agreed by both the parties. As per the petitioner, despite completion of contract, he was continued and the contract was [2025:RJ-JP:31240] (2 of 4) [CW-4527/2009] renewed for three years. In the meanwhile, only on account of lodging of an FIR, all of a sudden without giving any opportunity of hearing and in violation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India as well as by not treating the petitioner as workman and by casting stigma upon the petitioner, in most arbitrary and illegal manner order dated 10.02.2009 has been passed. 3. It has also been argued even the condition of the contract has been violated by the respondent-Corporation by passing the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parshotam Lal Dhingra Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1958 SC 36 and has submitted that he was in fact terminated from a temporary post as per RSRTC worker and Workshop Employees Standing Order, 1965 without giving any notice or inquiry. Hence, such termination order may be quashed and directions of reinstatement along with all consequential benefits may be given. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the writ petition, narrating it to be totally misconceived and misplaced. It has been submitted that the initial engagement of the petitioner was merely on contractual basis for a limited term. Such appointment was never made in accordance with relevant Rules after following the due process of law, the petitioner was not holding a post under the relevant Rules/Standing Orders, hence, there was no occasion for making compliance of Article 311 of the Constitution of India or provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. [2025:RJ-JP:31240] (3 of 4) [CW-4527/2009] 5. It has also been submitted that order of rescission of contract cannot be termed as stigmatic order. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that even if the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order of rescission of contract then the remedy lies elsewhere and the writ petition is not maintainable. 6. I have considered the submissions made at bar and perused the record. 7. The petitioner has utterly failed to establish that he was substantively appointed on the post of Driver-cum-Conductor in the respondent-Corporation. Admittedly, he has never participated in any selection/recruitment process and was simply engaged on the basis of a contract entered into between the petitioner and respondent-Corporation. Under such circumstances, when the rights of the petitioner are governed and regulated by the terms and conditions of contract and in case, the petitioner is aggrieved by violation of terms and conditions of the contract, writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. 8. The judgment of Parshotam Lal Dhingra (Supra) as relied upon by the petitioner is not applicable on facts. In the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the matter relating to an employee appointed under the Rules on temporary basis. Here, in the instant case, the petitioner has not come out with similar facts. Thus, the petitioner cannot take any help out of the aforesaid judgment. 9. In view of above, submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that he was holding a temporary post allegedly pursuant to the Standing Order of 1965 was also misplaced and [2025:RJ-JP:31240] (4 of 4) [CW-4527/2009] inconceivable. It is settled proposition of law that even for filling up temporary post, the employer was bound to follow the procedure for recruitment/selection as prescribed in the Rules. In the case in hand no such procedure has ever been followed by the respondent-Corporation. 10. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is totally meritless and devoid of any substance and therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /14