1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.2713/2005. : : Kamlesh Kumar Sharma Vs. R.S.R.T.C. & Anr. : : Date of Order 24.9.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr.Bharat Yadav for the petitioner. Ms.Archana Mantri, for the respondents. This writ petition has been filed with the prayer that respondents be directed to declare the result of the interview for recruitment on the post of Drivers held on 21.7.2003, in which the petitioner participated and with the further that advertisement No.201/2004-2006 issued by them be quashed and set aside with the direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Driver on the priority basis. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that when the result of the earlier interview, which was held on 21.7.2003, was not declared, there was no basis for issuing fresh advertisement on 16.2.2005. The petitioner was interviewed and, therefore, he has a right to get appointment as he earlier worked for respondents. He holds a valid driving 2 license, therefore, he has a right to get priority in the matter of appointment. The subsequent advertisement has been issued with a view to accommodate the chosen once, therefore, the action of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary. The respondents have contested the writ petition and submitted that twice when the petitioner applied was not for regular appointment, but it was only initiated to prepare a penal of drivers. The petitioner was called for interview on 3.7.2003 and the penal was also prepared but that penal was cancelled by order dated 8.9.2004 because the respondents did not require the drivers at that time. Subsequently, fresh exercise was done again to prepare the penal. In view of the clarification made by the respondents, it cannot be said that earlier when the petitioner was interviewed, the respondents initiated the process to make regular appointment. They merely wanted to prepare a penal of drivers for a particular season. It was prepared but eventually the penal was cancelled. Subsequently, when they issued fresh advertisement, the petitioner was free to apply for the same. In view of the nature of the advertisement, no positive direction requiring the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of 3 driver can be issued. The petitioner however, would be at liberty, if and when the respondents undertake fresh exercise for preparation of penal in the similar manner to apply for the same. There is no merit in this writ petition. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.45.