HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 168/2019 1. Madan Lal S/o Shri Tiku Ram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Binjasi, Post Sihot Bari, Tehsil Dhod, District Sikar, Rajasthan Pin 332028 2. Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Suraj Bhan, R/o Village And Post Khora, Via Bai, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar, Rajasthan. 3. Sanjay Kumar S/o Shri Suraj Bhan, R/o Village And Post Khora, Via Bai, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar, Rajasthan 4. Bhanwar Singh S/o Shri Jai Singh Shekhawat, R/o Village Mangarh, Post Ajitgarh, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, District Sikar, Rajasthan. 5. Sunil Singh S/o Shri Babu Singh, R/o Manoharpura, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. 6. Rajveer Singh S/o Ishwar Singh, R/o Village Bhagina Post Kajra Tehsil Surajgarh Jhunjhunu ----Appellants Versus 1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through Its Managing Director, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur. 2. Pyare Lal Dhaka S/o Shri Girdhari Lal Dhaka, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Sawloda Purohitan, Via Khudi Bari, Distt. Sikar (Raj.) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dharmendra Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 18/02/2025 1. The present appellants challenge a common judgment of the Single Judge whereby batch of writ petitions was rejected. 2. The case relates to recruitment to the post of Conductor in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. The recruitment process began in 2010; the cut off for the written test was published on 9-1-2011. (2 of 3) [SAW-168/2019] 3. Thereafter, the recruitment was embroiled in a series of litigation – the first related to the cut off marks determined for Other Backward Classes (OBC) as against the general merit candidates. The Corporation was subjected to certain directions to revise the list; so a second litigation related to imposition of condition that the candidate should possess licence to drive heavy motor vehicles; the third related to formulation of minimum marks for the trade test – not declared at the time of recruitment process but evolved and imposed subsequently. After the Court had to repeatedly intervene in the recruitment, eventually the Supreme Court upheld the order of this Court whereby it was clarified that the select list should be drawn dependent on who had approached to this Court on a particular date i.e. 9-11-2011. 4. The Supreme Court eventually by its orders, recorded that revision of results would have entailed remarking/revision of40,000 candidates, confined the exercise 6032 candidates only. A Division Bench further clarified that extra marks, wherever directed were to be awarded to those who had approached this Court prior to 9-11-2011. 5. After the eventual revision of results/declaration, several writ petitioners approached this Court – one batch contended that those who were selected during the interregnum (552 candidates)ought not to be removed. Other batch including the present appellants whose contention was that even after revision certain candidates were retained in service, as the candidates with lesser merit were allowed to continue even after revision and that in the event of their being removed from service, their (i.e. the writ petitioners) claims would be acceptable. 6. The learned Single Judge, in relation to the present petitions, held as follows :- “59. I have gone through the entire pleadings made in the petitions and this Court finds that the petitioners do not have any case or issue which needs to be adjudicated by taking into (3 of 3) [SAW-168/2019] account the submissions, made during the course of hearing. 60. This Court has already found that the Corporation has to prepare the merit list by not insisting on conditions of possessing HMV Driving Licence and further the formula evolved for trade test has also to be kept in mind. The employer-Corporation has carried out the exercise and now the list of 552candidates who are not finding place in the revised merit list and list of 943 candidates of final select list has been prepared. The Corporation has now declared separate cut-off marks for each category as per revised result and accordingly it intends to fill the post. The issue with regard to directions given in the cases of Narpat Dan (supra), Prem PrakashSharma (supra) and Ramesh Chand (supra)cannot be revived in the present batch of writ petitions. The petitioners if do not find place in the revised select/merit list as they have not secured the requisite marks, no fault can be found with the Corporation and the prayer made by the petitioners cannot be granted by this Court.” 7. It is contended that Corporation has adopted double standards – on the one hand revising the results and applying the merit criteria to candidates; on the other allowing retention of candidates who fall much below the last cut off. 8. This Court is of the opinion that Single Judge’s approach and the impugned order could not be defaulted. It has been noticed that Corporation has carried out the fresh exercise and published a list of 943 candidates of which the earlier 552 are not a part. In these circumstances, requiring the Corporation yet again carry out the same exercise in relation to a recruitment which started in 2010 could not be appropriated. 9. The appeal is therefore dismissed. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J ANAND TANWAR /67