Point of Law: Section 3 of the Act, which is mandatory in character, also lays down that a person shall not drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence.

JUDGMENT :

R.M.CHHAYA, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 11.8.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application no.1064 of 2014, whereby the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the Writ Petition.

2. Following noteworthy facts arise from the record of the appeal:

That, the respondent Municipal Corporation gave an advertisement in public newspaper– Gujarat Samachar on 20.3.2007 and invited applications for various posts. The present appeal relates to the post of driver. As per the advertisement so published by the respondent – Corporation, 93 posts of driver was advertised. As per the said advertisement for the post of driver, the candidate was required to have a driving licence of heavy vehicle with transport vehicle with authorization of RTO amongst other requisite qualifications. As per the said advertisement, the last date was 10.4.2007. Record indicates that the appellant applied for the post of driver on 29.3.2007. In the application form which was in a prescribed form, it was mentioned by the appellant that he has enclosed leaving certificate, copy of ration card as well as copy of driving license. Record further indicates that on the date of submission of the application by the appellant i.e. on 29.3.2007, the appellant was possessing the driving license bearing no.282411 and the appellant was authorized to drive 'light motor vehicle and motorcycle'. The record further indicates that the appellant also produced a learner's license which was valid from 29.3.2007 to 28.9.2007 for driving heavy motor vehicles which came to be issued by the competent licensing authority under Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. Pursuant to the application so made, the appellant was called for physical and vision test by the respondent Corporation vide communication dated 5.5.2008 followed by a practical test vide communication dated 23.10.2008. Pursuant to the same, the appellant appeared and ultimately, the appellant came to be appointed as trainee driver, by the respondent-Corporation vide order dated 31.8.2009. On further scrutiny of the documents, the license submitted by the appellant was found to be improper and therefore, the respondent-Corporation addressed a communication dated 20.3.2012 asking the appellant to produce a certificate from RTO within a period of 3 days. The same was replied by the appellant, wherein also, it is stated by the appellant that on 29.3.2007, the appellant had submitted four wheeler licence and before the process of interview commenced, the requisite license was submitted. On scrutiny of the documents and the reply so submitted, the competent authority of the respondent Corporation found that on 10.4.2007, i.e. on the last date of application, the appellant had not submitted the requisite license as per the requirements and the competent authority of the Corporation came to the conclusion that the appellant has wrongly obtained the job of a trainee driver and his services came to be discontinued. The petitioner approached this Court by way of filing a Writ Petition being Special Civil Application no.11364 of 2013, whereby the very termination order came to be challenged and the same was disposed of vide order dated 30.8.2013. As the petitioner had already availed alternative remedy of filing an appeal, this Court was pleased to direct the Corporation to decide the appeal in accordance with law. The appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 15.10.2013 and thereafter, the Writ Petition came to be filed on the grounds set out in the memo of petition. The learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the petition and hence, the present appeal is filed.

3. Heard Mr. Vaibhav Vyas, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. C.J. Vin, learned advocate for the respondent – Corporation.

4. Mr. Vaibhav Vyas, learned advocate for the appellant has taken this Court through the factual matrix arising out of this appeal and has submitted that the learned Singl