JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer that the order dated 9th December, 1996, Annex. 3 issued by the respondents be quashed. 2. The contextual facts depict that the petitioner came to be initially appointed as conductor on 1.2.1979. On 7.12.1979, the petitioner was deputed to work as Booking Clerk and he worked as Booking Clerk upto 9th December, 1996. Thereafter he was ordered to work as conductor again vide order dated 9th December, 1996 and was posted as Conductor and was forced to work as such with immediate effect. 3. The petitioner served a notice on the respondent, but no justice was done to him. Therefore, the order dated 9th December, 1996 has been called in question in the instant writ petition. 4. I have reflected over the rival submissions advanced by both the parties and carefully scanned the material on record.4-A. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Mohan Lal Soni v. RSRTC & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3126/91, decided on 22.1.1997 , where by the writ petition was decided and the following directions were issued - 1. That the respondent RSRTC shall first adjust the petitioners in the posts of Booking Clerk at any Depot in Rajasthan where vacancies are available. 2. In case the number of booking Clerks is found more than the existing posts and vacancies, the RSRTC shall be free to post as Conductors to those Booking Clerks who are junior most in the seniority. 3. The petitioner shall give their option within four weeks from today that they are ready to go on transfer as Booking Clerk at any place where the vacancies are available. The petitioners can also give option of three Depots in preference where they want to be adjusted on transfer and the RSRTC shall first try to adjust them as per their preference and seniority if vacancies are available there. In case, no vacancy is available at any of the Depots preferred by them, then they shall be transferred at any other place in Rajasthan. 5. I am of the considered view that the petitioner in the instant case could not have been forced to work as Conductor again. In case, no vacancy is available at any of the Depots preferred by them, then they shall be transferred at any other place in Rajasthan. 5. I am of the considered view that the petitioner in the instant case could not have been forced to work as Conductor again. A look at the impugned order demonstrates that no reason has been assigned as to why the petitioner was directed to work as Conductor after serving as Booking Clerk till December, 1996. The impugned order appears to be arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. 6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 9th December, 1996, Annex. 3 stands set-aside. 7. Costs easy.Writ Petition Allowed. *******