IMPORTANT POINT
A learner's license does not satisfy the requirement of a driving license for recruitment purposes, and qualifications must be possessed by the cut-off date specified in the recruitment advertisement.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

M.S.SONAK, J. - Heard Mr A. D. Bhobe for the petitioner and Mr Shubham Priolkar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

2. Rule. The rule is made returnable immediately considering the short controversy involved and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Alka Ojha v/s. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Anr. - (2011) 9 SCC 438, which, according to us, covers the issue against the petitioner.

3. By advertisement dtd. 28/3/2021, applications were invited from the eligible candidates for filling up the posts of Police Sub Inspector (PSI) (Female) through direct recruitment. The petitioner applied on 10/4/2021. As of the last date for receipt of the applications (the cut-off date prescribed in the advertisement), the petitioner was holding a learner's license to drive a light motor vehicle. The petitioner obtained a driving license only on 3/6/2021.

4. The petitioner participated in the selection process and, on 24/6/2022, was called upon to produce all the original documents for verification. The date fixed for verification was 4/7/2022. On 2/12/2022, the select list was published in the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category. The petitioner was shown at serial no.2 against the eight posts reserved for the OBCs. On 16/12/2022, the petitioner was again called upon to produce documents/certificates specified in the advertisement in the context of the cut-off date of 30/4/2021. In particular, the petitioner was called upon to submit the driving license she possessed as of the cut-off date.

5. On 3/1/2023, the petitioner furnished a copy of her learner's license and the permanent driving license to respondent no.2. On 22/2/2023, the petitioner was informed that the competent authority, upon consideration of the documents, held that the petitioner did not have the essential qualification of possessing a driving license as on the cut-off date and therefore, the petitioner could not be appointed as PSI. On 3/4/2023, several PSIs were appointed, but not the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner instituted this petition on 10/4/2023.

6. Mr Bhobe, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the learner's license possessed by the petitioner on the cut-off date amounted to sufficient compliance with the requirement of a driving license. Mr Bhobe submitted that, in any case, the petitioner did obtain a permanent driving license on 3/6/2021, much before the date of scrutiny or the conclusion of the selection process. Mr Bhobe relied upon National Insurance Co. Ltd. v/s. Swaran Singh & Ors. -(2004) 3 SCC 297 to submit that even a learner's license is a valid driving license; therefore, the same was required to be considered. Based upon these submissions, Mr Bhobe urged that this petition be allowed, and the petitioner be directed to be appointed as PSI.

7. Mr Shubham Priolkar learned Additional Government Advocate countered the above contentions by submitting that the cut-off date set out in the advertisement is sacrosanct and any qualification obtained after the cut-off date cannot be considered. He relied on Alka Ojha (supra) to point out the difference between a "learner's license" and a "driving license" to submit that the holder of a learner's license cannot be considered eligible for recruitment when the requirement in the recruitment rules calls for possessing a driving license. Mr Priolkar submitted that in facts almost identical to the present petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court declined relief to the petitioner. Therefore, Mr Priolkar submitted that this petition may be dismissed.

8. The rival contentions now fall for our determination.

9. In such matters, the cut-off date prescribed in the advertisement is quite sacrosanct. The qualifications possessed by the candidate as on this cut-off date have to be considered. The qualifications obtained after this date cannot be considered.

10. In Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. and Anr. v/s. Dharminder Singh - 2021 SCC OnLine SC 126