Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 2827

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
Yogendra Kumar Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 8983 of 2020 & CM APPL.28998 of 2020
Decided On : 15-02-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, CGSC with Mr. Srish Kumar Mishra, Mr.Sagar Mehlawat and Mr. Alexander Mathai, Advocates, SI Prahlad Devenda and SI Amit Kumar, CISF, for the UOI.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the interpretation of eligibility criteria specified in an advertisement should be in line with the actual legal provisions, and any disqualification based on technicalities should be scrutinized to ensure compliance with the legal framework.

Headnote:
Driving License - Eligibility Criteria for Constable/DCPO - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 2(47), Section 2(35), Section 2(33), Section 2(14), Section 2(11), Section 2(21), Section 2(22), Section 2(23), Section 2(24), Section 2(16), Section 2(17) - The petitioner challenged the cancellation of his selection for the post of Constable/DCPO due to the invalidity of his driving license. The court held that the petitioner's driving license for Transport Vehicle met the eligibility criteria specified in the advertisement, which required a valid driving license for Heavy Motor Vehicle or Transport Vehicle. The court interpreted the Motor Vehicles Act to establish that the petitioner's license for Transport Vehicle was valid for the advertised post, and the conjunction 'or' between the two categories unambiguously led to the interpretation that the license should have been valid for Transport or Heavy Motor Vehicle. The court found the respondent's contention to disqualify the petitioner as arbitrary, without basis, and contrary to the advertisement, and directed the reconsideration of the petitioner's candidature with all consequential benefits.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the cancellation of his selection for the post of Constable/DCPO due to the invalidity of his driving license. Despite meeting the eligibility criteria and being provisionally selected, his selection was cancelled based on the invalidity of his driving license. The petitioner sought the court's intervention to quash the cancellation and direct the respondent to treat his driving license as valid.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's driving license for Transport Vehicle met the eligibility criteria specified in the advertisement for the post of Constable/DCPO, which required a valid driving license for Heavy Motor Vehicle or Transport Vehicle. The court held that the respondent's contention to disqualify the petitioner was arbitrary, without basis, and contrary to the advertisement. The court directed the reconsideration of the petitioner's candidature with all consequential benefits.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's driving license met the eligibility criteria specified in the advertisement for the post of Constable/DCPO, and whether the cancellation of his selection based on the invalidity of his driving license was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the Motor Vehicles Act to establish that the petitioner's license for Transport Vehicle was valid for the advertised post, and the conjunction 'or' between the two categories unambiguously led to the interpretation that the license should have been valid for Transport or Heavy Motor Vehicle. The court found the respondent's contention to disqualify the petitioner as arbitrary, without basis, and contrary to the advertisement.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, directed the reconsideration of the petitioner's candidature with all consequential benefits, and disposed of the pending applications.

JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J. A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari for quashing of Order dated 15.10.2020 whereby selection of the petitioner for the post of Constable/DCPO has been cancelled and for issuance of Writ of Mandamus for directing the respondents to treat the Driving License of the petitioner as valid and issue Appointment Letter and permit him to join the training along with other candidates with all consequential benefits.

2. The facts in brief are that an advertisement in the month of February, 2018 for filling up temporary post of Constable/Driver cum Pump Operator (DCPO) in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) was issued. The petitioner being eligible as per the criteria prescribed in the advertisement, applied for the post in the category of OBC. Recruitment process consisted of Height Bar Test (HBT), Physical Endurance Test (PET), Physical Standard Test (PST), Documentation, Trade Test, Written Test and the final was the medical examination. After examining eligibility of the petitioner by taking note of the eligibility conditions prescribed in the Advertisement, petitioner was issued Admit Card and was called for Height Bar Test, Physical Endurance Test on 17.09.2018 which was cleared by the petitioner. Thereafter, he was issued an Admit Card for the written examination which was held on 17.02.2019. After successfully cleared all the examinations, he was declared provisionally selected subject to the medical examination. The list of provisionally selected candidates was published on 16.04.2019 and the name of the petitioner was reflected at Sr. No.328. His medical examination was also conducted and was found fit. He was verbally informed that he would have to report to CISF, Bhilai, Chattisgarh. The petitioner accordingly visited Bhilai, where he was informed that the recruitment process is still underway and the final list shall be declared pursuant to which he would be called for joining. The revised result of provisionally selected candidates was published, wherein the names of all the candidates who were found medically fit on review were supposed to appear, but to the shock and surprise of the petitioner, his name was not included in the list.

3. The petitioner filed W.P. (C) No.9723/2019 titled as Vikram Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India which was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 24.10.2019 with the following directions:

"15. Even otherwise with the Respondents having advertised 447 vacancies, there appears to be no logical reason for not preparing a reserve list. The contention of learned counsel for the Respondents, on the basis of averment in the counter affidavit, that candidates from the reserved list may miss out on the training already being imparted to the 372 selected candidates overlooks the fact that there have been numerous instances where there is a large batch of candidates qualifying in a selection, all of them may not be able to be sent for training at the same time but are further split into groups and sent for training in batches. In any event of the present case, the fault entirely lies with the Respondents for not adhering to the settled legal position explained in the above decisions of the Court interpreting OM dated 13th June, 2000 and underscoring the need to prepare the reserve list of candidates.

16. Consequently, the Court directs that the Respondents will now prepare a reserve list of candidates pursuant to the result already declared on 29th August, 2019 taking into account the reservations provided in terms of the advertisement. Those figuring in the reserve list, including the Petitioners if they do figure in such reserved list, will be sent offers of appointment. This exercise be completed not later than 8 weeks from today. The petition is allowed to the above terms. The pending application is also disposed of. No order as to costs.

17. A copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of the Co