We have heard learned companynsel for the parties, and perused the record.
His educational qualification was 8th standard pass.
Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant filed intra companyrt appeal, but the same was disposed of by the Division Bench of the High Court vide impugned order dated 1.5.2014 declining to interfere with the order of learned Single Judge, and observed that the said order advances the cause of justice companysidering the hardship faced by the family of deceased employee.
When the appellants did number accept request for appointment against the post of driver, the respondent filed writ petition number 1892 of 2011 which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 29.1.2014, directing the appellant to companysider case of the respondent for the post of driver.
The respondent was accordingly companymunicated by the appellants vide letter dated 18.1.2008.
However, it was further observed by the Division Bench that the order would be treated to have been passed in the special facts and circumstances of the case.
However, said licence was number for heavy vehicles.
The appellants companysidered the application for appointment on companypassionate ground, and rejected the same on the ground that the respondent was number qualified either for the post of driver or that of companyductor.
The respondent made further companyrespondence in the matter after obtaining driving licence on 23.1.2007.
Prafulla C. Pant, J. This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 1.5.2014, passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, in B. Civil Special Appeal W No.
428 of 2014 whereby the Division Bench declined to interfere with the order passed by learned Single Judge.
Brief facts of the case are that one Kalyan Singh father of the respondent Revat Singh was a driver with appellant Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation hereinafter referred to as the Corporation .
