Honble LODHA, J.–This reference, in a group of 19 writ petitions, in the opinion of the Single Judge, became necessary because of two conflicting decisions viz., (one) Bhagwan Singh vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (D.B. Special Appeal No. 1/2001, decided by the Division Bench on 20.11.2001) and (two) Jugal Kishore vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (D.B. Special Appeal No. 2996/2006, decided by another Division Bench on 10th May, 2006). (2). The Single Judge in the referral order observed thus: "Having carefully pondered over the judgments of division bench rendered earlier in Bhagwan singh vs. R.S.R.T.C. (supra) and later in Jugal Kishore vs. R.S.R.T.C. (supra) I find that they are in clear conflict and what has been observed in earlier D.B. Judgment has not been countenanced in latter D.B. judgment, ibid." (3). The facts being identical in all the writ petitions, to avoid multiplicity of facts and for the sake of brevity, we shall refer to the facts obtaining in the case of Munna Lal Sharma vs. The Managing Director, R.S.R.T.C. & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 144/2007). (4). Munna Lal was appointed as Conductor on 27th May, 1984 in the Alwar Depot of the Rajasthan Roadways Transport Corporation (for short, "the Corporation"). He was confirmed as conduct on 10th May, 1985. For the period from 1st December, 1988 until the order dated 30th December, 2006 came to be issued, the petitioner was posted as a Junior Accountant (Canteen Stall), Booking clerk and D.S.A., Checking (Revenue Branch). By the order dated 30th December, 2006, he was asked to work as conduct on route in the Alwar depot. This order has been challenged by him in the writ petition on the ground that he has been working as Booking Clerk/L.D.C. for the last about 19 years continuously and in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhagwan Singh and few other decisions rendered by the Single Benches, the employee who was initially employed as Conductor and working on the post of Booking Clerk cannot be posted as Conductor particularly when he has been working on the post of Booking Clerk on a clear vacancy. He alleged that, though he has been posted as Conductor on route vide order dated 30th December, 2006, many junior persons still continue as Booking Clerks. (5). He alleged that, though he has been posted as Conductor on route vide order dated 30th December, 2006, many junior persons still continue as Booking Clerks. (5). The Corporation made Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Employees Services Regulations (for short, "the Service Regulations") in exercise of the powers vested in it under Section 45 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. The service regulations apply to all employees of the Corporation other than who have been expressly excluded in regulation No.2 thereof. (6). In regulation No. 7(3), `cadre means the strength of a service or part of a service sanctioned as a separate unit. Schedule-I appended to the Service Regulations provides for classification of services including the nature of posts in each service of the Corporation. As per the said schedule, the `traffic staff comprises of diverse posts including Conductor, Adda Conductor, Assistant Traffic Inspector etc. (7). The pay scale of Conductor and Adda Conductor is the same. The promotion to the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector is through the channel of Conductors/Adda Conductors. (8). In the year 1979, Rajasthan State Road Transport Employees Union (AITUC), (for short, `Union), inter alia raised the demand for re-designation of the post of `Adda Conductor as `Booking Clerk. In view of the settlement with the Union, the Corporation issued an order on 13th March, 1930 re-designating the post of `Adda Conductor, `Booking Clerk. By the said order, the Corporation decided that a seniority list of Booking Clerks shall be separately prepared and based on that seniority, the posting of Booking Clerks shall be done. It was clarified that the post of Booking Clerk shall not be a new post but a re-designated post of `Adda Conductor. The Depot Managers were also called upon by the said order to call for the option from the concerned employees whether they were desirous of being posted on the re- designated post. (9). The Corporation issued another office order on 21st August, 1981 mentioning therein that those who have opted for being posted as Booking Clerks are being posted accordingly. It was further mentioned that the order of posting shall be issued by the concerned Depot Manager as per the sanctioned posts. (10). Having done that, the Corporation issued another office order on 11th March, 1982 noticing that some Adda Conductors who have not been posted as Booking Clerks refused to work on route as Conductors. It was further mentioned that the order of posting shall be issued by the concerned Depot Manager as per the sanctioned posts. (10). Having done that, the Corporation issued another office order on 11th March, 1982 noticing that some Adda Conductors who have not been posted as Booking Clerks refused to work on route as Conductors. In the modification of the earlier orders, it was directed that if at any depot, Adda Conductors are more than the required and sanctioned posts, they may be directed to work as Conductor but while doing so the seniority of the Adda Conductors shall be kept in mind. (11). It appears that the various Depot Managers did not follow the office orders noticed above in the right spirit giving rise to the spate of litigation before this Court. (12). The Depot Manager, Jaipur (West), by his order dated 2nd June, 1988 directed few Booking Clerks working in his depot to report for duty as conductors. One Mohan Lal Sharma who claims to have joined the Corporation as Conductor in the year 1975 and having opted as Booking Clerk as per the option given vide office order dated 21st August, 1981 and posted as such, by the order dated 2nd June, 1988 was asked to report for duty as Conductor. Few others like him were also asked to report for duty as Conductors. The five separate writ petitions were filed before this Court; the leading case being Mohan Lal Sharma vs. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Another (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1837/1988). (13). The Single Judge of this Court by his order dated 23rd April, 1983 negatived the contention of the Corporation that pay scale of the post of Booking Clerks and Conductors being same and the petitioners having initially been appointed as Conductors, they can be asked to work as Conductor once they held the post of Booking Clerks for quite a few years. The Single Judge held that the Corporation could not have transferred/posted the petitioners therein as Conductors once they were posted as Booking Clerks. (14). The Single Judge held that the Corporation could not have transferred/posted the petitioners therein as Conductors once they were posted as Booking Clerks. (14). The Corporation vide resolution No. 21/146/91 sought to clarify that neither there was any demand from the Union for a separate cadre of Booking Clerks nor any such decision was taken and, therefore, the cadre of Conductor and Booking Clerks being one, as per the decision with the Union the re-designated post of Adda Conductor shall continue to be Booking Clerk and as far as possible keeping in view their seniority, the Senior Conductors shall be posted as Booking Clerks and, if necessary, they may be posted as Conductors. (15). The clarification issued vide resolution No. 21/146/91 also seems to have not been implemented in right perspective and few Depot Managers without keeping in view the seniority of the Conductors who were working as Booking Clerks for many years were asked to work as Conductor on route. One Ram Karan Sharma who has been working as Booking Clerk for many years, was asked to work as Conductor on route Tahla. he filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 677/1991 before this Court (Ram Karan Sharma vs. R.S.R.T.C. & Anr.). The Single Judge by his order dated 23.8.1995 allowed that writ petition in part by the following order: "I have considered over the matter. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner admits that so far as pay is concerned, the post are inter-changeable and Annex.2 which has been submitted shows that the petitioner was appointed as booking clerk-conductor. It is stated that the options were taken and on the basis of the options he was performing the duty of the post of Booking Clerk. The matter was discussed by this Court in the order of Mohanlal Sharma, referred to above, in details and the action of the respondents in transferring the petitioner was declared illegal. May be that the respondents have been able to make out the case with regard to the conduct of the petitioner. That is not justified in invoking extraordinary jurisdiction, but the fact remains that the petitioner was working as Booking Clerk and, therefore, the conversion from the post of Booking Clerk/ Conductor to the post of Conductor on route would be only on the basis of seniority of the candidate. That is not justified in invoking extraordinary jurisdiction, but the fact remains that the petitioner was working as Booking Clerk and, therefore, the conversion from the post of Booking Clerk/ Conductor to the post of Conductor on route would be only on the basis of seniority of the candidate. If the petitioner is in the seniority or any junior person has been given the post of booking clerk, then the petitioner cannot be deprived of his working on such a post and cannot be directed to assume the duty of conductor on route. The writ petition is accordingly partly allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the claim in accordance with the directions given above." (16). In another group of writ petitions, Mohan Lal Soni vs. R.S.R.T.C. & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3126/1991) and other connected matters, the Single Judge, based on the submissions and concession of the parties, by his order dated 22nd January, 1997 disposed of those matters involving the identical issue of posting of booking clerk as Conductors by the following order: "During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the parties made their submissions and concessions. These petitions are disposed of in the following manner:- "(i) that the respondent R.S.R.T.C. shall first adjust the petitioners in the posts of Booking Clerk at any Depot in Rajasthan where vacancies are available. (ii) In case the number of Booking Clerks is found more than the existing posts and vacancies, the R.S.R.T.C. shall be free to post as Conductors to those Booking Clerks who are junior most in seniority. If it is done so, as and when posts of Booking Clerk are available, these persons shall have a preference to be posted again as Booking Clerks as per their seniority subject to their option. for such Booking Clerks who are posted as conductors, it shall be for the R.S.R.T.C. to see that their conductor licenses are renewed. (iii) The petitioners 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 R.S.R.T.C. shall first try to adjust them as per their preference and seniority if vacancies are available there. The petitioners can also give option of three Depots in preference where they want to be adjusted on transfer and the R.S.R.T.C. 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." (17). In the case of Surendra Singh Chauhan vs. R.S.R.T.C. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5737/1996), the challenge was made to the order dated 17.7.1996 whereby the petitioner was posted as conductor while he has been working as Booking clerk since the year 1980. The Single Judge held that working as Booking Clerk from time to time does not create any right in favour of the employee to be treated as Booking Clerk for all times to come when the pay scale and promotion avenues for both the posts viz., Conductor and Booking Clerk are same; only the nomenclature is different. (18). The controversy relating to the posting Booking Clerks as Conductors was then raised by the Union in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1763/2001-Rajasthan State Roadways Employees Union & Ors. vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Others and by a few concerned employees in different writ petitions which were heard by the Single Judge together and disposed of by the common order dated 18th May, 2001. The Single Judge in his order dated 18th May, 2001 held thus: "From the above-said facts, even it be assumed, that there is no separate cadre for the Booking Clerks, shall the department is bound by its own actions and omissions coupled by the judgment in Mohan Lal Sharmas case (supra). Schedule-I attached to the Regulations does contain the post of Adda Conductor and Conductor and the Adda Conductors having more onerous duty for whom even certain special pay of rs. 20/0- 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. 20/0- 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. 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 whatsoever 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 go so and his chances of consideration to promotion on the post of ATI are not affected provided he fulfills the other qualifications. If any of such Conductor even amongst the seniors chooses to do the duties of the conductor only, he is at liberty to go so and his chances of consideration to promotion on the post of ATI are not affected provided he fulfills the other qualifications. 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 license 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. 3186/1997 that the Booking Clerks can be appointed wherever 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 license renewed. 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 whosoever fulfills the qualifications from the date of joining on the post of Conductor. 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 they 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." (19). Few Booking Clerks by the order dated 21st October, 2000 were posted as Conductors. The affected employees namely Bhagwan Singh and a few others filed separate writ petitions. Few Booking Clerks by the order dated 21st October, 2000 were posted as Conductors. The affected employees namely Bhagwan Singh and a few others filed separate writ petitions. These writ petitions were dismissed by the Single Judge by his order dated 28th November, 2000 which was challenged in a group of special appeals being Bhagwan Singh vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Another (D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.1/2001) reported in RLR 2002 (1) page 44. The Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge and disposed of these special appeals by the following order: "7. Having considered all aspects of the matter particularly the agreement between the union and the respondent Corporation, we are of the view that similar nature of directions, issued to the respondent Corporation by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3126/1991 (Mohan Lal Soni vs. R.S.R.T.C. & Ors.) decided on 22.1.1997 along with batch of petitions, shall meet the ends of justice and, thus, we set aside the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge and direct that- (i) The appellants who are working on the post of Booking Clerk on a clear vacancy, shall not be posted as Conductors on transfer; (ii) If the posts of Booking Clerk, on which the appellants are working, are not available, the respondent Corporation shall first adjust the appellants in their order of seniority on vacant posts of Booking Clerk at any other Depot of the respondent Corporation in the State of Rajasthan and the appellants shall give their option to work, at any such Depot where the vacancies of Booking Clerk are available, within a period of four weeks from today. While exercising the option, the appellants may give the name of three places of their preference where the posts of Booking Clerk are vacant at any other Depot of the respondent Corporation in the State of Rajasthan. While exercising the option, the appellants may give the name of three places of their preference where the posts of Booking Clerk are vacant at any other Depot of the respondent Corporation in the State of Rajasthan. The respondent Corporation shall see that the preference given by the appellants is given due weightage, if it is administratively possible; (iii) After above mentioned adjustments it is found that the number of posts of Booking Clerk available with the respondent Corporation are less than the number of the Conductors occupying the posts of Booking Clerk, then the junior most Booking Clerk shall first to be posted on the post of Conductor and so on; (iv) In the eventuality of post-posts of Booking Clerk becoming available later on, then senior most Conductor amongst the persons who have been posted from the post of Booking Clerk to the post of Conductor, shall be posted first as Booking clerk and that shall be followed till and those persons are not adjusted on the post of Booking Clerk, subject to their giving consent for such posting." (20). Despite the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Bhagwan Singh, the Corporation continued to flare up the litigation by asking some of the Booking Clerk to work as Conductors on route inconsistent with the directions issued by the Division Bench in the case of Bhagwan Singh. One Jugal Kishore who has been working as Booking Clerk was transferred as Conductor to another Deport vide order dated 6th July, 2004. He challenged that order by filing a writ petition (5099/2004). The said writ petition was dismissed on 3rd March, 2006. Jugal Kishore filed a special appeal being D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 299/2006. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal by the order dated 10th May, 2006 observing thus: "Case of the appellant is that he is a Booking clerk and in view of his seniority he cannot be transferred against the post of bus Conductor. The submission appears to be totally misconceived. The posts of Conductor and Booking Clerk are not only of the same cadre, they are in fact equivalent and interchangeable posts. The appellant was appointed as Conductor in 1979 but later posted as Booking Clerk in 1987. If the posts were not inter-changeable he should have made grievance of his posting as Booking Clerk. The posts of Conductor and Booking Clerk are not only of the same cadre, they are in fact equivalent and interchangeable posts. The appellant was appointed as Conductor in 1979 but later posted as Booking Clerk in 1987. If the posts were not inter-changeable he should have made grievance of his posting as Booking Clerk. Case of the appellant however is that while posting as Booking Clerk as Conductor, seniority of the person has to be taken into account and in this regard reliance is sought to be placed on a judgment of learned Single Judge in Rajasthan State Roadways Employees Union (AITUC) vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. In our opinion, the posts being inter-changeable, in the absence of any policy decision, no person can claim that he cannot be posted as Conductor on account of his seniority. If that were so, after a certain stage, he can never be posted as Conductor. That would not be consistent with the interchangeable character of the two posts. Transfer and posting are executive functions which cannot be interfered with by Courts unless there is violation of some statutory rule or policy or in case of mala fide. the instant case is one of transfer and posting simplicitor and the appellant cannot challenge the same. The learned Single Judge therefore did not commit any error in dismissing the writ petition." (21). It is this order which the learned Single Judge found to be in conflict with the earlier decision of the Division Bench in the case of Bhagwan Singh. (22). The Chaotic situation and the spate of litigation relating to the posting of `Booking Clerk as `Conductor has been due to whimsical approach of the Corporation and its authorities and by not strictly adhering to the various decisions of this Court, particularly the decision by the Division Bench in the case of Bhagwan Singh. (23). That the post of Conductor and Adda Conductor (re- designated as Booking Clerk) belong to one and the same cadre in the service admits of no ambiguity. It is seen from Schedule-I appended to the Service Regulations. Both posts are part of the same cadre having same pay scale and provide for common channel for promotion to the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector. It is seen from Schedule-I appended to the Service Regulations. Both posts are part of the same cadre having same pay scale and provide for common channel for promotion to the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector. Under the classification of `Subordinate, Ministerial, Traffic, Technical and Civil Cell Staff, the post of `Adda Conductor is at number 6 while the post of `Conductor is at number 7. Separate posts of `Adda Conductor and `Conductor in the same cadre seem to have been created keeping in view their respective duties. `Conductor on route issues tickets in the Bus while the job of `Adda Conductor or for that matter `Booking Clerk is to issue ticket at the Bus Stand or the Depot. (24). It was on the demand made by the Union in the year 1979 for re-designating the post of `Adda Conductor as `Booking Clerk, the decision was taken by the Corporation that the post of `Adda Conductor shall be known as `Booking Clerk. The confusion arose because of the exercise undertaken by the Corporation for preparation of a separate seniority list of Booking Clerks. The whole idea of preparing the separate list of Booking Clerks was to categorize within the same cadre the post of Booking Clerk for the purpose of posting and nothing further. It was not and could not have been the intention of the Corporation to create separate cadre of Booking Clerks. There was no demand to that effect by the Union. The demand was to re-designated the post of Adda Conductor as Booking Clerk and the posting of Conductors as Booking Clerks according to the Depot wise seniority. The Corporation clarified the position by its order of 1982 which was never put in issue by the Union or the concerned employees. The separate mention of two posts (Booking Clerk and Conductor/Adda Conductor) under Heading `Traffic Department in Schedule-II is only for the purposes of revised new pay scales. It has nothing to do with the different cadre. The post of Adda Conductor and the Conductor are the posts under one cadre in Schedule-I under the heading "B" classification of "Subordinate, Ministerial, Traffic, Technical and Civil Cell Staff." The Service Regulations, in our opinion, does not show nor does it contemplate the separate cadre of Adda conductor (or for that matter Booking Clerk). The post of Adda Conductor and the Conductor are the posts under one cadre in Schedule-I under the heading "B" classification of "Subordinate, Ministerial, Traffic, Technical and Civil Cell Staff." The Service Regulations, in our opinion, does not show nor does it contemplate the separate cadre of Adda conductor (or for that matter Booking Clerk). We approve the view of the Division Bench in the case of Bhagwan Singh that the post of Booking Clerk is not a separate cadre post than that of Conductor under the Service Regulations. (25). Since the post of Conductor and the Booking Clerk is not different cadre post but relate to the same cadre; the different nomenclature being for the purposes of discharge of duties, ordinarily there would not have any impediment for the Corporation in asking the Conductor to discharge the duty of Adda Conductor (Booking Clerk) or vice-versa because these are two different jobs in the same cadre post. However on the basis of the agreement that the Corporation entered into with the Union, it categorised the post of Booking Clerk in the same cadre for posting them as such on the basis of their seniority. In various orders passed by the Single Benches and the order of the Division Bench in the case of Bhagwan Singh, the conductors having been posted as Booking clerks based on their seniority, it has been ordered that they should be disturbed from the posting of Booking Clerks only if there is no clear vacancy of the Booking Clerk. As a matter of fact in the case of Bhagwan Singh, the Division Bench struck a practical solution to the problem of posting of Booking Clerks vis-a-vis Conductors in the backdrop of the settlement that the corporation entered into with the Union and the said judgment having not been challenged by the Corporation, in our view, the position based on the said judgment must be acceptable and nothing ought to be done by the Corporation that disturbs the said position. (26). As a matter of fact, adherence to the directives issued by the Division Bench in the case of Bhagwan Singh obviates the arbitrary posting of Booking Clerks as Conductors which the few authorities of the Corporation ventured to do on few occasions and that gave rise to a spate of litigation before this Court right from the year 1993. (26). As a matter of fact, adherence to the directives issued by the Division Bench in the case of Bhagwan Singh obviates the arbitrary posting of Booking Clerks as Conductors which the few authorities of the Corporation ventured to do on few occasions and that gave rise to a spate of litigation before this Court right from the year 1993. The controversy relating to the posting of Booking Clerk vis-a-vis Conductor, must come to an end once for all. (27). In so far as the order of the Division Bench in the case of Jugal Kishore is concerned, broadly speaking, there cannot be any objection to the proposition that the post being inter- changeable, the posting of employee of one post to the other inter-changeable post may be done and that would not be inconsistent with the inter-changeable character of the two posts but in a case like this where with regard to a particular inter- changeable post, a policy decision has been taken and a settlement arrived at by the Corporation based on the demand raised by the Union, anything done contrary thereto shall not be fair and may breed arbitrariness. The Division Bench in the case of Bhagwan Singh held, and we agree, that if there is a clear vacancy, the Booking Clerk shall not be posted as Conductor on transfer. That the Corporation accepted this position is clear from the fact that the judgment in Bhagwan Singh was never challenged. the counsel fro the Corporation who appeared in the case of Jugal Kishore ought to have brought to the notice of the Division Bench the earlier decision in the case of Bhagwan Singh to avoid inconsistent decision. The judgment in the case of Bhagwan Singh having not been cited, the Division Bench passed the order in Jugal Kishore in ignorance of the earlier decision and to that extent the order of the Division Bench in the case of Jugal Kishore is per incuriam. (28). We conclude thus: (a) The decision in the case of Bhagwan Singh, particularly clauses (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of paragraph 7 is approved. The Corporation shall strictly adhere to these directives. (b) In exceptional case, where a Conductor suffers from a physical disability affecting the discharge of duties as Conductor, irrespective of his seniority, the Corporation may consider such Conductor being posted as Booking Clerk. The Corporation shall strictly adhere to these directives. (b) In exceptional case, where a Conductor suffers from a physical disability affecting the discharge of duties as Conductor, irrespective of his seniority, the Corporation may consider such Conductor being posted as Booking Clerk. (c) Similarly in the event of posting of Booking Clerk as Conductor in the category of cases covered by clause (iii) of para 7 of Bhagwan Singhs case, in case where the junior most Booking Clerk is required to be posted on the post of Conductor, suffers from physical disability, he may be continued as Booking Clerk and the booking Clerk next above him maybe posted on the post of Conductor. (d) The judgment of the Division bench of this Court, in the case of Jugal Kishore and all other judgments to the extent these are inconsistent with the judgment in the case of Bhagwan Singh stand over-ruled. (e) The impugned orders of posting in all the eighteen writ petitions are rendered ineffective. The Corporation shall now issue fresh orders for the posting of the petitioners in accordance with the directions afore-noticed. (f) The writ petitions stand disposed of with no order as to costs. PER HONBLE SHIV KUMAR SHARMA, J. (29). I have, closely, scanned the draft judgment of brother Lodha, J. I agree with every word that has been said by him. But considering the importance of issues involved I would like to add few words of my own. (30). Indisputably Division Bench of this Court pronounced the judgment in Bhagwan Singh vs. RSRTC (supra) on November 20, 2001 in the presence of Counsel for RSRTC and the ratio indicated in Bhagwan Singh attained finality since it was never challenged by the RSRTC. It was therefore incumbent on the counsel for RSRTC to bring the judgment rendered in Bhagwan Singh to the notice of the Division Bench that was hearing the appeal of Jugal Kishore (supra) on May 10, 2006. (31). I find it difficult to agree that counsel who represented RSRTC in the matter of Jugal Kishore before the Division Bench, had no knowledge of the judgment of Bhagwan Singhs case. The reasons as to why the ratio propounded in Bhagwan Singhs case was not brought to notice of Division Bench are best known to the counsel for the RSRTC. I find it difficult to agree that counsel who represented RSRTC in the matter of Jugal Kishore before the Division Bench, had no knowledge of the judgment of Bhagwan Singhs case. The reasons as to why the ratio propounded in Bhagwan Singhs case was not brought to notice of Division Bench are best known to the counsel for the RSRTC. However the counsel for RSRTC, being officer of the Court, was not expected to play hide and seek with the court. (32). Evidently the order in the case of Jugal Kishore was rendered in ignoratium of binding authority. `Incuria literally denotes `carelessness. In practice `per incurium appears to mean per ignoratium. In Yound vs. Bristal Aeroplane Co. Ltd. (1944) 2 All ER 293 it was held that the `quotable in law is avoided and ignored if it is rendered in ignoratium of a statute or other binding authority. English Courts had developed the principle of per incurium in relaxation of the rule of stare decisis. (33). In Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Gurnam Kaur (1989) 1 SCC 101 , the Supreme Court indicated that `precedents sub- silentio and without argument are of no moment. Views expressed by Professor P.J. Fitzgerald and Sir Wilfrid Greene MR, were referred as under:- (Paras 11 and 12) "Professor P.J. Fitzgerald, editor of the Salmond on Jurisprudence, 12th edn. explains the concept of sub silentio at P. 153 in these words: A decision passes sub silentio, in the technical sense that has come to be attached to that phrase, when the particular point of involved in the decision is not perceived by the Court or present to its mind. The Court may consciously decide in favour of one party because of point A, which it considers and pronounces upon. It may be shown, however, that logically the Court should not have decided in favour of the particular party unless it also decided point B in his favour; but point B was not argued or considered by the Court. The Court may consciously decide in favour of one party because of point A, which it considers and pronounces upon. It may be shown, however, that logically the Court should not have decided in favour of the particular party unless it also decided point B in his favour; but point B was not argued or considered by the Court. In such circumstances, although point B was logically involved in the facts and although the case had a specific outcome, the decision is not an authority on point B. Point B is said to pass sub silentio." "Sir wilfrid Greene MR, said that he could not help thinking that the point now raised had been deliberately passed sub silentio by counsel in order that the point of substance might be decided. He went on to say that the point had to be decided by the earlier court before it could make the order which it did; nevertheless, since it was decided "without argument, without reference to the crucial words of the rule, and without citation of authority, it was not binding and would not be followed. Precedents sub silentio and without argument are of no moment. This rule has ever since been followed. One of the chief reasons for the doctrine of precedent is that a matter that has once been fully argued and decided should not be allowed to be reopened. The weight accorded to dicta varies with the type of dictum. Mere casual expressions carry no weight at all. Not every passing expression of a judge, however eminent, can be treated as an ex cathedra statement, having the weight of authority." (34). The Apex Court in Arnit Das vs. State of Bihar (2000) 5 SCC 488 , considered the rule of sub-silentio and observed thus:- "....That which has escaped in the judgment is not the ratio decidendi. This is the rule of sub-silentio, in the technical sense when a particular point of law was not consciously determined." (35). A look at the order in Jugal Kishore further demonstrates that even the agreement entered between the Union and the RSRTC escaped notice of the Division Bench. It therefore follows that in view of doctrine of precedent a matter that had once been fully argued and decided ought not to have been reopened. A look at the order in Jugal Kishore further demonstrates that even the agreement entered between the Union and the RSRTC escaped notice of the Division Bench. It therefore follows that in view of doctrine of precedent a matter that had once been fully argued and decided ought not to have been reopened. Accordingly, the order in the case of Jugal Kishore, cannot be upheld because it is wrong in principle and cannot be justified by the terms of the agreement between the Union and the RSRTC. It was passed in sub-silentio.