The interpretation of "heavy vehicles" in the context of technical qualification for recruitment of Police Driver should be in accordance with the ratio of Mukund Dewangan (2013) 14 SCC 663, which held that a holder of a light motor vehicle licence can drive all the vehicles of the class including transport vehicles.

JUDGMENT :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. Five writ petitions have been taken up for analogous hearing as they emanate out of the same impugned order dated March 4, 2020 passed by the State Administrative Tribunal.

2. The writ petitioners before us had filed five several original applications challenging the panel prepared for the post of Police Driver in Kolkata Police Department, Government of West Bengal. They had prayed for an order granting their appointment after reassessing their candidature.

3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the writ petitioners has submitted that, Kolkata Police Recruitment Board issued a notice dated March 20, 2006 whereby applications were invited from eligible candidates for the post of Police Driver in Kolkata Police. The petitioners had applied therein. He has referred to the advertisement issued by the Kolkata Police Recruitment Board. He has referred to technical qualification prescribed in the recruitment process. He has submitted that, an applicant in the recruitment process must possess a valid licence to drive heavy vehicles.

4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the writ petitioners has submitted that, the definition of heavy vehicles had been omitted in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Such omission in the statute was made prior to the issuance of the advertisement dated March 20, 2006. Therefore the entire selection process was vitiated as the prescription of technical qualification appearing in the advertisement was no longer available in the statute. Moreover, the concept of heavy vehicles underwent a change in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and therefore, the word “heavy vehicles” used in the advertisement cannot be interpreted by taking recourse to a judgment of the Supreme Court.

5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the writ petitioners has contended that, the authorities are required to adhere to the technical qualifications prescribed in the advertisement dated March 20, 2006. He has pointed out that, the State respondents acknowledged that, candidates without possessing the heavy vehicle licence were also included in the list of successful candidates as recorded in the order dated July 19, 2013 passed in the original application. He has contended that, the tribunal did not enter into the issue of candidates not possessing heavy driving licence being included in the list of successful candidates at the time of final hearing of the original application.

6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the writ petitioners has contended that, the change of stand of the State from the order dated July 19, 2013 passed in OA 1535 of 2012 to that subsequently taken, does not alter the position in law. In any event, it does not change the category of drivers that had been advertised for.

7. Referring to Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company, 2013 (14) SCC 663 on which reliance was placed by the tribunal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the writ petitioners has contended that the same does not help the State. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, violation of the eligibility criterion prescribed in the advertisement initiating the selection process has been admitted. Justification of the selection made despite violations of the eligibility criterion, on the basis of interpretation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 should not be accepted. He has relied upon Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited vs. Rambha Devi and Others, 2023 (4) SCC 723 in this regard.

8. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 5 to 301 opposing the writ petitioners has contended that, the tribunal relied upon the interpretation of the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court rendered in Mukund Dewangan (supra). He has relied upon M.S. Bhati vs. National Insurance Company Limited, 2019 (12) SCC 248 and contended that, Mukund Dewangan (supra) was considered therein. He has referred to Sections 2 (21) and 47 as well as Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as amended i