Back
Candidates Cannot Be Denied MV Inspector Post for Lacking Petrol HGV/HPV Experience:
The has delivered a significant ruling on the recruitment of Motor Vehicle Inspectors, holding that candidates cannot be denied appointment merely because they lack experience in repairing Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV) and Heavy Passenger Vehicles (HPV) fitted with petrol engines—a category of vehicles that have not existed in India for decades. A Division Bench of Justices R Devdas and K Manmadha Rao also clarified that the one-year work experience requirement can be satisfied through aggregate experience across different automobile workshops.
The Recruitment Dispute
The controversy stems from a
notification by the
(KPSC) to fill 150 posts of Motor Vehicle Inspectors. The eligibility condition, derived from
, mandated
"work experience of at least one year in a reputed automobile workshop which undertakes repairs of both Light Motor vehicles, Heavy Goods Vehicles and Heavy Passenger Vehicles fitted with petrol and diesel engine."
In , the deleted this requirement via an amendment, acknowledging the anomaly. However, the High Court in an earlier judgment ( ) ruled that the amendment could not operate retrospectively, and directed the KPSC to proceed with the selection based on the original notification.
Following this, KPSC issued a Revised Final Selection List in and forwarded candidates' experience certificates to Deputy Commissioners for verification. Several candidates whose certificates were found lacking—particularly in the petrol HGV/HPV category—were denied appointment, leading them to approach the (KSAT) and subsequently the High Court.
Arguments on Both Sides
The State, represented by , argued that the rules require a strict one-year experience in each category of vehicle—LMV, HGV, and HPV—fitted with both petrol and diesel engines. Any relaxation would create an endless chain of concessions, the State contended, citing the 's decision in that statutory requirements cannot be for convenience.
The candidates, through advocates , , and , countered that the rule only requires combined experience of one year across all categories. They pointed to the 's constitutional bench decision in , which held that for in-service candidates, combined experience as advocate and judicial officer should be counted together for eligibility.
Court's Legal Analysis
The High Court found the provision ambiguous, noting that it cannot be read to mandate one year's experience in each vehicle type.
"There can be different interpretations of the provision and surely the provision cannot be read to mean that a candidate must possess work experience of at least one year in all the three types of vehicles,"
the Bench observed.
Relying on the 's ruling in , the Court held that when there is ambiguity in prescribing qualifications, the benefit must go to the candidate. The KSAT's conclusion that aggregate experience suffices was therefore upheld.
On the more troubling issue of petrol HGV/HPV experience, the Court took a stern view. The Additional Advocate General had conceded that no petrol engines exist in this category for decades. Yet, the KPSC and Transport Commissioner had accepted certificates from state-owned corporations like and claiming such experience, while rejecting candidates whose certificates honestly reflected the reality.
"A Blatant Lie" and "Travesty of Justice"
The Bench minced no words in condemning this double standard.
"The acceptance of certificates issued by
,
and the other State owned Transport Corporations indicating that the candidate has experience in repairs of HGV and HPV petrol vehicles, at the hands of the KPSC/Commissioner of the Transport Department is clearly unreasonable, knowing fully well that for the past several decades there are no petrol vehicles in the category of HGV and HPV in India,"
the judgment states.
"The statement made in such certificates issued by the State owned Corporations are a blatant lie."
The Court invoked the legal maxims
(the law does not compel the impossible) and
(impotence excuses the law), citing the seven-judge bench decision in
.
"When it appears that the performance of the formalities prescribed by a statute has been rendered impossible by circumstances over which the persons interested had no control, like the act of God, the circumstances will be taken as a valid excuse,"
the Court observed.
Ultimately, the Bench declared that the Commissioner
"shall not be permitted to reject the candidature of any selected candidate or decline to issue appointment order on the ground that he/she does not have the experience in HGV or HPV petrol vehicles."
Final Orders and Implications
The High Court dismissed the State's writ petition challenging the KSAT order that allowed aggregate experience. It allowed the candidates' petitions, quashing the KSAT orders that had rejected their applications. The Court directed the to issue appointment orders to all candidates whose names appear in the Revised Final Selection List of , provided they meet the aggregate experience requirement and other conditions.
For cases where physical verification of workshops was disputed, the Court ordered fresh inspections by Deputy Commissioners. All appointment orders must be issued within two months.
This ruling sets an important precedent for recruitment processes where eligibility conditions have become impossible to satisfy due to technological or market changes. It reinforces the principle that administrative authorities cannot apply rules mechanically when doing so leads to absurd or unjust results.
