Delhi High Court Upholds Strict Driving License Rule for Male Sub-Inspectors

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a candidate seeking appointment as Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police, holding that possession of a valid Light Motor Vehicle driving license on the date of the Physical Endurance and Measurement Test is a non-negotiable statutory requirement for male applicants.

A Division Bench comprising Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora rejected challenges to both the gender-specific condition and the refusal to accept a license obtained after the prescribed cut-off.

The Dispute and Its Origins

Vikram Kumar Jha applied for the Sub-Inspector (Executive) Male post under the 2019 SSC notification. While he cleared the written exams and the Physical Endurance and Measurement Test held on 24 December 2020, he could produce only a learner’s license at that stage. His permanent driving license was eventually issued on 26 March 2021 after he relocated to Noida.

The petitioner argued that the pandemic-induced restrictions prevented him from obtaining the license in time and that requiring the document only from male candidates amounted to impermissible discrimination.

Competing Contentions Before the Court

Jha’s counsel submitted that the learner’s license should suffice for eligibility purposes and pressed for acceptance of the later-obtained permanent license, citing COVID-related delays and Supreme Court orders extending limitation periods. He also attacked paragraph 7.6 of the notification as discriminatory.

On the other side, counsel for the Staff Selection Commission and Delhi Police defended the condition as flowing directly from the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980. Rule 7 mandates a valid LMV license for male candidates on the date fixed for PEMT, whereas Rule 14(a) governing SI (Women) contains no such stipulation. They emphasised that candidates lacking the license remain eligible for CAPF posts.

Why the Court Found No Discrimination

The Bench noted that the distinction originates in the statutory rules themselves, which remain unchallenged in the petition. Because the notification merely mirrors Rule 7 for male posts and Rule 14(a) for female posts, the argument of arbitrariness was held to be untenable.

On the second limb of the case, the Court decisively rejected the equation of a learner’s license with a regular driving license. Quoting the Supreme Court’s observations in Alka Ojha , the Bench held:

> “A reading of the two definitions brings out stark difference between the two types of licences… the very fact that the legislature has thought it proper to make separate provisions for grant of two types of licences leads to an irresistible conclusion that a person holding ‘learner’s licence’ cannot be treated at par…”

The judgment further clarified that the requirement must be satisfied on the date of PEMT and cannot be relaxed at the document-verification stage without violating statutory rules.

Court’s Final Order and Its Implications

Finding no merit in the petition, the Court dismissed it outright. The petitioner was reminded that he had already been selected for the SI post in CISF and therefore suffered no total exclusion from service.

The ruling reinforces that recruitment conditions prescribed under statutory rules must be strictly complied with on the dates specified in the notification. It also signals that COVID-related difficulties, while understandable, cannot be invoked to bypass mandatory eligibility criteria when candidates had ample opportunity to apply for documents well before the pandemic.

Legal observers believe the decision will guide future challenges concerning timing of document submission in competitive examinations conducted by the SSC and similar recruiting bodies.