The possession of a valid driving licence for a motor cycle is an essential qualification for the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors, as prescribed by the Central Government notification under S.213(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, despite the absence of this requirement in the Kerala Transport Subordinate Service Rules.

Sankarasubban, J.

Both these writ appeals are concerned with the same question and hence, they are disposed of by a common judgment. W.A.No.1748 of 1996 is filed by the petitioner in O.P. No. 16290 of 1996 while W.A. No. 1534 of 1996 is filed by the petitioner in O.P. No. 15161 of 1996. First we shall deal with the facts in O.P. No. 16290 of 1996. The Kerala Public Service Commission issued Ext. P1 notification dt.11.7.1995 inviting applications for the posts of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspectors by direct recruitment in the Motor Vehicles Department. The qualifications stipulated for the post are:

(1) Pass in X standard.;

(ii) Diploma in Automobile Engineering awarded by the State Board of Technical Education or equivalent qualification;

(iii) Working experience of at least one year in a reputed (Government approved) Automobile Workshop which undertakes repairs of both Light Motor Vehicles, Heavy Goods Vehicles and Heavy Passenger Motor Vehicles fitted with Petrol and Diesel Engine.

A certificate has to be produced in the Form to show the experience

(iv) Must hold a driving licence authorising him to drive Motor Cycle, Heavy Goods vehicles and Heavy Passenger Motor Vehicles. There is a note in Ext. P1 which says as follows:

"The candidate should claim their qualification and experience specifically in the application and produce attested copies of documents to substantiate their claim, failing which such applications will be summarily rejected".

The last date for receiving the application was 30.8.1995.

2. The petitioner submitted his application before the last date. He received Ext. P2 from the Public Service Commission intimating that his application was rejected on the following reasons:

(i) Experience Certificate without salary is not acceptable, (ii) Licence regarding motor cycle is not produced.

However, Ext. P3 admission card was issued to the petitioner to appear for the examination. Petitioner appeared in the written examination. By Ext. P4, the petitioner was asked to cure the defects in his application. Petitioner sent Ext. P5 letter. Along with that he gave an experience certificate showing his salary and licence showing that he was qualified to drive motor cycle from 14.2.1996. As a matter of fact, the licence will show that the petitioner had obtained Licence for driving heavy motor vehicle from 19.12.1988 and heavy goods vehicle and heavy passenger vehicle from 21.7.1990. Subsequently, petitioner received Ext. P6 order from the PSC rejecting his application on the ground that the petitioner did not have a driving licence to drive a motor cycle on the last date of the application. It is challenging Ext. P6 order that the O.P. has been filed.

3. With regard to O.P.No. 15161 of 1996, the petitioner filed his application pursuant to Ext. P1 notification issued by the PSC on 18.7.1995. By Ext. P4, the same was rejected for non-production of the experience certificate and motor cycle licence. But, subsequently, he was allowed to sit for the examination after curing the defects by producing the experience certificate and also a licence which enabled him to drive the motor cycle from 13.5.1996. The petitioner had taken heavy vehicle licence and licence for driving heavy motor vehicles, heavy goods vehicle on 8.7.1987. He got the endorsement with regard to the motor cycle on 13.5.1996. By Ext. P6 order, petitioner's application was rejected by the PSC on the ground that the petitioner did not have valid driving licence for motor cycle on the last date for receiving the application, viz., 30.8.1995. -

4. The learned single judge, before whom both these Original Petitions came up for hearing, dismissed the OP s. on the ground that the driving licence for driving motor vehicle is an essential qualification laid down by the Central Government and since the petitioners did not possess the qualification even on the last date of the application, the PSC was correct in rejecting the application. It is challenging the above jud