JUDGMENT 1. - All the above-said writ petitions involve similar and identical facts with identical prayer, therefore, are being decided together. 2. Writ Petition No. 1763/2001 has been filed by the Rajasthan State Roadways Employees Union whereas the remaining writ petitions have been filed by the employees in the individual capacity, but are directed against the same order dated 3.4.2001 passed by the Chief Manager. 3. To augment the income of the Corporation, a decision was taken by the Corporation to depute the Booking Clerks as Conductors for one month on experimental basis and if within the said period of one moth, the income on the route is increased, all such Booking Clerks who are deputed to work as Conductors, and who show improvement in the income would again be posted against the post of Booking Clerk for three months and in case there is no increase in the income, said persons were not to be posted against the post of Booking Clerks. In view of the said decision taken on 30.3.2001, attached as Annexure-6, certain Booking Clerks in different depots were deputed to go on route as Conductors. Such lists are attached as Annexures-7 and 8 in the writ petition No. 1763/2001. 4. For the decision of the writ petitions, the facts are being taken from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1763/2001. 5. The Corporation appoints conductors who are deputed in the bus on the route for issuing tickets. The conductors are supposed to charge the amount of fare as fixed from the passengers on the route by selling the tickets. The sale of tickets is entered in the way bill and the cash is deposited in the office. The Corporation also has a post called with the nomenclature of 'Adda Conductor' and normally the senior most conductors are named as such. 6. It is the contention of the petitioners that a settlement was arrived at between the respondent Corporation and its employees on 21.2.1979 which was duly approved by the Board of Directors wherein a decision was taken to appoint Conductors as Booking Clerks. Options were invited from the Conductors with further decision that such employees, posted as Booking Clerks, shall be entitled to next promotion to the higher post and in view of the settlement aforesaid and on receipt of the options, separate list of Booking Clerks was prepared. Options were invited from the Conductors with further decision that such employees, posted as Booking Clerks, shall be entitled to next promotion to the higher post and in view of the settlement aforesaid and on receipt of the options, separate list of Booking Clerks was prepared. Extract seniority list has been attached as Annexure-2, but complete seniority list has also been attached in the connected writ petition No. 1733/2001. 7. It is the statutory requirement for a Conductor to hold license while conducted the bus under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, but the Booking Clerks, after so being posted as Booking Clerks, were not required by the Corporation to have the Conductor's licence or the badges as per decision Annexure-3. As such, the requirement of licence was restricted only to Conductors. 8. A seniority list of Booking Clerks as on 31.12.1975 was circulated on 30.9.1997. The petitioners involved in the writ petitions and other Booking Clerks are said to be discharging their duties regularly as Booking Clerks. According to the petitioners even the Corporation was of the view that the work of the Conductor cannot be taken from the Booking Clerks and rely for such contention on Annexure-5 dated 10.12.1999. The dispute of the fact whether the Booking Clerks constitute a separate cadre and they cannot be put to work on the post of Conductor, according to the petitioner was finally settled in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 3992/88-Shiv Dayal v. RSRTC and Ors. , S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1837/88 Mohan Lal Sharma v. RSRTC and Ors. , S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1838/88 Shree Narain Sharma v. RSRTC and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4125/88-Rajasthan Parivahan Employees Union v. RSRTC & Anr. , which writ petitions were allowed on 23.4.1993. A clear direction is said to have been given by this court in this regard. Even Special Appeal filed against such writ petitions is said to have been dismissed on 30.8.1995. 9. On the facts aforesaid, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the decision taken on 30.3.2001 (Annexure-6) and consequently orders passed vide Annexure-7 and similar orders passed in other writ petitions cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 10. Reply has been filed in writ petition No. 1763/2001 and 1733/2001. 11. 9. On the facts aforesaid, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the decision taken on 30.3.2001 (Annexure-6) and consequently orders passed vide Annexure-7 and similar orders passed in other writ petitions cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 10. Reply has been filed in writ petition No. 1763/2001 and 1733/2001. 11. It is stated that there is no post named as Booking Clerks against which a person can be posted. The nomenclature was given by the department only for the purpose of convenience while distributing the duties and it was never meant of creating a new cadre of such posts. In the year 1991 vide Annexure R/1, it was made clear that for getting promotion, Adda Conductors/Conductors/Booking Clerks would be considered equally and it was further ordered that it was only a change of nomenclature of the post otherwise all the three categories were entitled to promotion to the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector. The respondent submits that no separate cadre of Booking Clerk was ever created. In regard to possessing of license by the Booking Clerks, it is submitted that it was incumbent on the part of the concerned Booking Clerks to possess the license. The scale of Conductors/Adda Conductors/Booking Clerks is the same. It is also the case in the written statement that as a matter of fact Adda Conductors were renamed as Booking Clerks. 12. As per Annexure-1 and 2, it is clear that nomenclature of Adda Conductor was changed to Booking Clerk and number of Adda Conductors as on 2.6.1981 was 1740 including temporary Adda Conductors. It was decided that as per seniority of Conductors upto Sr. No. 1750 who are working in the Corporation and the Conductors out of the said number had given their option for being posted as Booking Clerks and persons who had not given any option were to be treated as Conductors. It was further decided in Clause (5) of Annexure-2 that the promotion to Assistant Traffic Inspector would be made out of the seniority list of Booking Clerks. 13. A decision was also taken vide Annexure-3 dated 26.7.1990 that there was no necessity for such Booking Clerks to obtain the license of the Conductors. Seniority list of Booking Clerks was circulated vide Annexure-4. Vide Annexure-5 instructions are issued that no work of Conductor should be taken from the Booking Clerks. 14. 13. A decision was also taken vide Annexure-3 dated 26.7.1990 that there was no necessity for such Booking Clerks to obtain the license of the Conductors. Seniority list of Booking Clerks was circulated vide Annexure-4. Vide Annexure-5 instructions are issued that no work of Conductor should be taken from the Booking Clerks. 14. Vide Annexure R/1, a clarification was issued that there is no cadre of Booking Clerks and that it was only a misconception that the promotion to the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector would be made only from the persons who were posted as Booking Clerks. It was further clarified that the option given to Adda Conductors/Conductors to apply for the posting as a Booking Clerk was not to create any cadre of Booking Clerk, rather Adda Conductors/Conductor and the Booking Clerks belongs to the same cadre. 15. Standing Orders as framed by the Corporation include the posts amongst others of driver, Conductors, Cleaner, Booking Clerk, Cash Clerk, Depot Clerk, Watch Man etc. 16. The Corporation has also framed Regulation Under section 45 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 w.e.f. 15.8.1965. The cadre has been defined to mean the strength of a service or part of a service sanctioned as a separate unit. Regulation 105 defines 'service' as classified in Schedule I. Strength of Cadre is to be determined under Regulation 106. Method of recruitment by way of competitive examination or by way of promotion from the lower post in the cadre is provided under Regulation 116. 17. Procedure for recruitment as well by way of promotion to the service has been prescribed under Regulations 116 and 117. Seniority is to be maintained as per Regulation 119. 18. Vide order dated 24.6.1997 in regard to procedure of direct recruitment or promotion, it is mentioned that the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector (ATI) shall be filed up by direct recruitment and promotion in the ratio of 1 : 2 the post of Booking Clerk/Conductor. Under Item No. 40 the post of Conductor is to be filled up by direct recruitment with the qualifications mentioned therein. 19. Nothing has been mentioned in regard to the post of Adda Conductor or Booking Clerk as to how they are to be filled up. 20. Chapter XIII of the Regulations relates to the recruitment, promotion, seniority and confirmation. Under Item No. 40 the post of Conductor is to be filled up by direct recruitment with the qualifications mentioned therein. 19. Nothing has been mentioned in regard to the post of Adda Conductor or Booking Clerk as to how they are to be filled up. 20. Chapter XIII of the Regulations relates to the recruitment, promotion, seniority and confirmation. Regulation 108 provides for determination of vacancies in each class of superior service as enumerated in Schedule-I. Schedule-I attached to regulations under the heading of Traffic Staff mentions about the Adda Conductors and Conductors. 21. Question which arises in the present case is whether there was any cadre of Booking Clerk ever created. As per 'service' defined and as per Schedule-I, the classification of posts as mentioned in Schedule is of Conductor and Adda Conductor. Conductor is to be recruited by direct recruitment, however, in regard to Adda Conductor there is no method of recruitment either direct or by way of promotion. The nomenclature of Adda Conductor had been changed to the name of Booking Clerk. It seems that the senior most Conductors are being named as Adda Conductors with higher responsibility because of experience of conductors and, therefore, separate list was also being prepared of such Adda Conductors, lateron known as Booking Clerks. However, the cadre out of which the Adda Conductors/Booking Clerks have been carved out is the original cadre of Conductors. The said Adda Conductors/Booking Clerks have been put on the duties of issuing the tickets at the counter at the bus stand and may also be receiving the cash as well from the Conductors. The department did require such employees to work as Booking Clerks and for the reason that there was no direct recruitment to the post of Adda Conductors/Booking Clerks, certain number of posts have been ear-marked to be named as Booking Clerks/Adda Conductors. Nevertheless, they never ceased to be belonging to their parent cadre of Conductors. The question which arises in the present case is whether these Adda Conductors or Booking Clerks and because of seniority having been classified as such could cease to be the Conductors or once they have been given the duties of Adda Conductors or Booking Clerks, could they not be asked to perform the duties of Conductors. 22. The question which arises in the present case is whether these Adda Conductors or Booking Clerks and because of seniority having been classified as such could cease to be the Conductors or once they have been given the duties of Adda Conductors or Booking Clerks, could they not be asked to perform the duties of Conductors. 22. This very question had also arisen almost in identical circumstances in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3992/88-Shiv Dayal v. RSRTC and Ors. , S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1837/88-Mohan Lal Sharma v. RSRTC and Ors. , S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1838/88 Shree Narain Sharma v. RSRTC and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4125/88-Rajasthan Parivahan Employees Union v. RSRTC & anr. , which writ petitions were allowed on 23.4.1993. where the action of the Corporation was being challenged for reverting them to the post of Conductors and the contention of the respondent was that such Booking Clerks were on the cadre of Conductors and, therefore, they could make no grievance if they were being posted as Conductors. The submission of the Corporation that the cadre of Conductors and Booking Clerks was common was not accepted. Another point upon which the contention of the Corporation was not accepted was that the Booking Clerks are not required to possess the conductors license under the Motor Vehicles Act as license could only be held till he was holding the post of Conductor or doing the duties of Conductor. Ultimately, it was held that the transfer and posting of the petitioners i.e. Booking Clerks as Conductors was void abinitio. 23. Yet in another writ petition No. 3126/91 in regard to dispute of the posting of Booking Clerks, direction was given on consensus wherein the respondent Corporation was direction to adjust the Booking Clerks on the post in any depot in Rajasthan where the vacancies were available and if the number of Booking Clerks is found in excess than existing posts, the Corporation was given liberty to post them as Conductors who were junior as Booking Clerks and if such Booking Clerks are posted back as Conductors, their licenses as Conductors were to be renewed. This very judgment was again relied upon by a Single Bench of this court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3272/1998 decided on 27.7.1999. 24. This very judgment was again relied upon by a Single Bench of this court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3272/1998 decided on 27.7.1999. 24. The respondent relies on a judgment in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5737/96 decided on 3.8.98 Surendra Singh v. RSRTC , wherein a Conductor was posted as Booking Clerk from time to time but through out he was treated as Conductor, it was observed that the petitioner was not absorbed as Booking Clerk. It was further held that seniority was common for both the posts. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground that for the reason that the petitioner in the writ petition had not been absorbed as Booking Clerk and, therefore, he had no right to say that he belongs to the Class of Booking Clerk. 25. From the above narrated facts, the following facts/points are found; (i) the service as defined in Schedule-I consists of Conductors/Adda Conductors; (ii) the name of Adda Conductors had been changed to Booking Clerks; (iii) there is no provision as to how the Adda Conductors/Booking Clerks are to be recruited, either directly or by promotion; (iv) the Conductors are to be recruited directly; (v) the department had ear-marked certain number of posts as Adda Conductors who have been given the job of booking of tickets i.e. the department had itself classified the cadre of Conductors by bifurcating it into Conductors and Adda Conductors and even had asked the employees to opt for such post of Adda Conductor/Booking Clerk and in case of no such option, such employees were to be treated as Conductors. The option was asked for the purpose of ear-marking the duties as Adda Conductors/Conductors; (vi) As per rules, the next promotion is to the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector. ATI post is to be filled up by promotion as per rules from amongst the Booking Clerks/Conductors with an experience of five years; meaning thereby the Conductors as well as the Booking Clerks are equally eligible for the said post, but on the seniority cum merit basis. ATI post is to be filled up by promotion as per rules from amongst the Booking Clerks/Conductors with an experience of five years; meaning thereby the Conductors as well as the Booking Clerks are equally eligible for the said post, but on the seniority cum merit basis. Seniority of Booking Clerks/Conductors was common; (vii) The department had also issued instructions from time to time that the Booking Clerks normally should not be deputed on the duties of Conductors and such violation was to be taken seriously; (viii) Certain Booking Clerks were deputed to work as Conductors which was challenged in this court and it was held in Mohan Lal Sharma's case (supra) that once the Conductor is given the duty of Booking Clerk, that means he is absorbed as Booking Clerk, he cannot be asked to do the duties of the Conductors. 26. The decision dated 30.3.2001, for once again deputing the Booking Clerks to the post of Conductor is under challenge. May be the intentions of the department were to augment the income of the Corporation, even it to be so, but because of the commission and omission of the department itself, the department is now bound to treat the Booking Clerks as a class in themselves which is creation of Corporation itself. The Corporation was aware of this fact when it had ordered that the Booking Clerk need not procure license of the Conductor. In the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3126/97 even the Corporation had agreed to transfer the Booking Clerks to various depots where-ever the vacancies were available and if no such vacancies were available, junior most Booking Clerks could be asked to do the duties of Conductor after getting the license, that was an agreed order even by the Corporation. 27. From the above-said facts even it be assumed, that there is no separate cadre for the Booking Clerks, still the department is bound by its own actions and omissions coupled by the judgment in Mohan Lal Sharma's case (supra). 28. Schedule I attached to the Regulations does contain the post of Adda Conductor and Conductor and the Adda Conductors having onerous duty for whom even certain special pay of Rs. 28. Schedule I attached to the Regulations does contain the post of Adda Conductor and Conductor and the Adda Conductors having onerous duty for whom even certain special pay of Rs. 20/- was also proposed, in such situation, the senior most conductors ought to have been designated as Adda Conductors, now Booking Clerks after the change of nomenclature and in such situation there was hardly any necessity for asking any of such Conductor of his option for being absorbed to the post of Booking Clerk. May be because of misconception of facts, such asking for option for being absorbed as Booking Clerk from out of Conductors has created difficulties and mis-givings amongst the employees when even a decision was taken to the effect that the post of ATI could only be filled up by way of promotion from amongst the Booking Clerks whereas the Regulations prescribe that' such post is to be filled up by way of promotion from amongst the Booking Clerk/Conductors. No such decision could have been taken to fill up the post of ATI from amongst the Booking Clerks only as it went contrary to the Regulations, as the rules prescribe that the post of ATI is to be filled up from amongst Booking Clerks/Conductors and not Booking Clerks only. 29. After determining the vacancies of Booking Clerks in various depots, the senior most conductors are to be given the designation of Adda Conductors and Booking Clerks and there would have been no difficulty what-so-ever either in regard to promotion or posting of such persons. If any of such Conductor even amongst the seniors chooses to do the duties of the Conductor only, he is at liberty to do so and his chances of consideration to promotion on the post of ATI are not affected provided he fulfills the other qualifications. 30. If any of such Conductor even amongst the seniors chooses to do the duties of the Conductor only, he is at liberty to do so and his chances of consideration to promotion on the post of ATI are not affected provided he fulfills the other qualifications. 30. From the above discussion, I am of the opinion that even though the petitioners have merits; it is held that the Adda Conductors/Booking Clerks once having brought on the list as Adda Conductors or Booking Clerks against the vacancies available and so posted and licence of their Conductors having not been renewed for years together, such Booking Clerks cannot be asked to revert back even for temporarily to do the duties of the Conductor as has already been held by this court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3186/97 that the Booking Clerks can be appointed where-ever the vacancy is available and if there are surplus Booking Clerks, the junior most on the list can definitely be asked to do the duties of Conductor after getting his licence renewed. 31. Before parting with the judgment, it shall be appropriate and advisable to the department to invariably designate the senior most Conductors as Adda Conductors or Booking Clerks against the total number of vacancies available as per seniority and also to promote the Senior Most Booking Clerks/Conductors on seniority cum merit who-so-ever fulfills the qualifications from the date of joining on the post of Conductor. 32. In view of the above-said discussion, it is held that the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and any such decision to direct the Booking Clerk to do the duties of the Conductors and the impugned annexures to post them as such cannot be sustained in the eyes of law until and unless the Booking Clerks/Adda Conductors are found surplus and in that situation junior most incumbents cannot have any such grievance if they are so posted back to do the duties of Conductor in the absence of available vacancies. 33. The writ petitions are allowed with the above-said direction to the department to act accordingly. No order as to costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******