Judges : K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR
Sudeesh T.Balaraman - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Case No : O.P. No. 4584 of 1997
Decided On : 04/10/1997
Advocates Appeared :
P. Sankarankutty Nair & T.V. Ajaykumar For Petitioner Govt. Pleader (P.N. Sukumaran) For Respondents
Driving Licence - Qualification for Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector - R.4(b) of the Special Rules - Ext. P1 notification - Art.16 of the Constitution of India - S.213 of the Motor Vehicles Act - Ext. P9 notification - Work Experience - Ext. P7 rejection upheld
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of his application for the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector due to lack of driving licence for heavy vehicles and work experience. He argued that the requirement was illegal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner did not possess the necessary qualifications as per R.4(b) of the Special Rules and Ext. P1 notification at the time of application, and therefore, his rejection was justified. The court also upheld the requirement of work experience as per Ext. P9 notification.
Issues: The issues revolved around the interpretation of the qualification requirements for the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector and the legality of the rejection of the petitioner's application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner must possess the necessary qualifications as on the last date fixed to submit the application, and the requirement of work experience as per Ext. P9 notification was valid and binding.
Final Decision: The petitioner's application was dismissed, and the rejection of his application for the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector was upheld.
Abdul Gafoor, J.
The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext. P7 and seeking a declaration that "insistence of qualification to drive heavy goods vehicles, heavy passenger vehicles as on the last date of application to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector for appointment as per Ext. P1 notification is illegal and also that the rejection of Ext. P6 work experience as paid trainee for appointment to the above post is illegal". By Ext. P7, his application to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector was rejected on the ground that he did not possess driving licence to drive heavy vehicles and that he did not have work experience as required in Ext. P2 notification.
2. Ext. P1 is the notification issued by the Public Service Commission inviting applications to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, a category in Kerala Transport Subordinate Service governed by the Special Rules for the said service. R.4(b) of the Special Rules provides for the minimum qualification for direct recruitment to the post as follows:
(i) Minimum general educational qualification of the S.S.L.C. Standard.
(ii) Diploma in Automobile Engineering issued after a course, the duration of which is not less than three years by recognised Universities or by Government.
(iii) Motor Driving Licence with endorsement for driving Heavy Passenger Motor Vehicles and Heavy Goods Vehicles.
Note: In the absence of candidates possessing Motor Driving Licence with endorsement of eligibility for driving Heavy Passenger Motor Vehicles and Heavy Goods Vehicles those without such an endorsement in their licence will also be considered for appointment to the post. Such candidates, if selected, shall however obtain the Heavy Passenger Motor Vehicles and Heavy Goods Vehicles endorsement, within the period of probation.
This rule insists that the incumbent should possess licence to drive heavy goods and heavy passenger vehicles. But, it does not insist for licence to drive motor cycles. Admittedly by the petitioner, he did not possess driving licence to drive heavy vehicles and heavy passenger vehicles as on the last date fixed in Ext. P1 to submit the application. It is also mentioned in the Note in Ext. P1 notification that the application shall indicate their qualifications in the application and shall produce self attested certificates along with the application. This makes it clear that one should possess the necessary qualification for the post insisted in the notification at the time of submitting application. When the petitioner did not possess the necessary minimum obligatory qualification as contained in the Special Rules or in Ext. P1 notification as on the last date to submit the application, necessarily he is not entitled to be considered. Art.16 of the Constitution of India ensures equality of opportunity to all in the matter of public employment, to such circumstances, in order to have definiteness, there shall be cut off date. It cannot be taken that any person can apply at any time as and when he gets qualified for appointment to any post. When a last date is fixed in a notification, it shall be taken that all those who are qualified as on that date alone are entitled to apply. That will be the sense accepted by all. If one applies even without that qualification and acquire the qualification later, and insists that he shall be considered; there will be several other persons like him, who did not apply, only because of the stipulation of last date in the notification. Therefore, in order to have definiteness in the matter of selection for public employment, the applicant should possess the necessary minimum qualifications as on the last date fixed to submit the application. Therefore, as the petitioner did not possess the driving licence to drive goods vehicle and heavy passenger vehicle as on the last date fixed to submit the application, he was not entitled to apply for the post pursuant to Ext. P1. Thus, his application was
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.