Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1998 Supreme(Raj) 1112

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
J.C.Verma, J.
Anil Kumar Prasad - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 2219 of 1996, 4124 of 1996, 1567 of 1996 and 1568 of 1996.
Decided On : 21-05-1998

For the Petitioners:Mr. N.K. Singhal and Mr. Y.K. Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondent No. 1:K.K. Sharma, Advocate.
For the R.P.S.C.:Mr. S.N. Kumawat, Advocate.

The government has the authority to prescribe qualifications for recruitment, and candidates must be qualified on the last date of making applications for the post in question.

Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLE SUB-INSPECTOR RECRUITMENT - QUALIFICATIONS - DIRECT RECRUITMENT VS PROMOTIONAL QUOTA - DISCRIMINATION - VALIDITY OF QUALIFICATIONS - RAJASTHAN TRANSPORT SUBORDINATE SERVICES RULES, 1963 - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - SECTION 213(4).
Fact of the Case:

Petitioners, possessing Mechanical Engineering Diploma certificates, challenged the qualifications prescribed for direct recruitment to the post of Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspector, arguing that the requirement of a driving license and work experience in an automobile workshop was discriminatory compared to the qualifications for promotional quota candidates. They sought to quash the impugned orders and declare ultra vires the relevant conditions in the Rajasthan Transport Subordinate Services Rules, 1963.
Finding of the Court:

The court upheld the validity of the qualifications prescribed for direct recruitment, emphasizing that the government has the authority to prescribe qualifications and that no vested rights are violated by such changes. It distinguished the petitioners' reliance on certain Supreme Court judgments, holding that those cases involved different factual scenarios and did not support their argument.
Issues: 1. Whether the qualifications prescribed for direct recruitment to the post of Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspector, including the requirement of a driving license and work experience in an automobile workshop, were discriminatory compared to the qualifications for promotional quota candidates. 2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to be appointed despite not possessing the required qualifications at the time of submitting their applications.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the qualifications prescribed for direct recruitment were not discriminatory, as the government has the authority to prescribe qualifications and no vested rights are violated by such changes. 2. The court distinguished the petitioners' reliance on certain Supreme Court judgments, holding that those cases involved different factual scenarios and did not support their argument. 3. The court emphasized that candidates must be qualified on the last date of making applications for the post in question, as per the guidelines laid down in Mrs. Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan.
Final Decision: All four writ petitions were dismissed, with the court finding no merit in the petitioners' arguments. The court also suggested that the government reconsider the qualifications for direct recruitment and promotional quota to ensure consistency.

JUDGMENT

1. - All the writ petitioners possess the certificates of three years course Mechanical Engineering Diploma. They fulfil the academic educational qualifications for the post of Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspector. As many as 89 post of Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspectors (hereinafter called as 'Sub- Inspector') were advertised on 15.4.1995. The candidates possessing the qualifications for direct recruitment were eligible to be considered. The qualifications are prescribed as under :

"(1) minimum general educational qualification of a pass in X standard; and

(2) a diploma in Automobile Engineer (three year course) or a diploma in Mechanical Engineering awarded by the State Board of Technical Education (3 years course); and

(3) working experience of at least one year in a reputed automobile work shop which undertakes repairs of both light motor vehicles, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger motor vehicles fitted with petrol and diesel engine; and

(4) must hold a driving licence authorising him to drive motor cycle, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger motor vehicles.

2. Nothing contained in the notification shall apply to an officer appointed to such post before the first day of July, 1989 and to an officer appointed to discharge function of a non-technical nature.

3. This notification shall come into force on the first day of July, 1989."

2. The qualifications prescribed for promotional quota i.e. 25% are that the LDCs with certificate of Mechanical Engineering is eligible for selection. The condition of the driving licence is not essential so far as promotional quota is concerned. All the writ petitioners submit that the qualifications prescribed for direct recruitment quota viz-a-viz. the promotees amount to hostile discrimination and, therefore, the qualification in regard to possession of driving licence is discriminatory if compared with direct recruitment quota. Therefore, a common prayer has been made to quash the impugned orders in respect of writ petitioners (Order dated 11.4.1996 Ex. 13 in the case of Anil Kumar, Order dated 20.2.1996 Annex. 3 in Bajrang Lal's case, Order dated 20.2.1996 Annex. 8 and 9 in the case of Vishnu Dutt and order dated 20.2.1996 Annex. 9 and 10 in the case of Sanjay Sharma). A further prayer has been made to declare ultra vires the condition Nos. 3 and 4 of Clause 3 of Schedule I of the Rajasthan Transport Subordinate Services Rules, 1963.

3. All the candidates had appeared in the examination subject to fulfilling the qualifications and their candidature was cancelled either on the ground that they do not possess the requisite qualification of holding licence or they are overage or do not fulfil one or the other qualification.

4. It is the submission of the petitioners that for the reason that no such qualifications have been prescribed for promotional quota, therefore, the mandatory prescribed qualification for direct recruitment quota in Condition Nos. 3 and 4 be declared ultra vires i.e. the condition of working experience of at least one year in Automobile Workshop and of passing a driving licence of heavy vehicle.

5. In my opinion, there is no merit in the submission of the counsel for the petitioners.

6. It is also submitted that previously there was no such qualification and by way of amendment such qualification has been added so far as direct recruitment is concerned. Previously only ITI with Matric qualification was prescribed.

7. The qualifications for the recruitment of Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspectors have been prescribed by the Central Government as per sub-section (4) of Section 213 of the Motor Vehicle Act for direct recruitment. So far as qualification prescribed under the Rajasthan Transport Subordinate Service Rules, 1963 for promotions, are to be made from amongst L.D.Cs of the Transport Department who possess the certificate of Automobile Engineering or who have passed the departmental examination in Automobile Engineering.

8. The Central Government had issued a notification on 12.6.19

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1998 Supreme(Raj) 1112

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCHJ.C.Verma, J.Anil Kumar Prasad - AppellantVersusState of Rajasthan - RespondentS.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 2219 of 1996, 4124 of 1996, 1567 of 1996 and 1568 of 1996.Decided On : 21-05-1998

The government has the authority to prescribe qualifications for recruitment, and candidates must be qualified on the last date of making applications for the post in question.

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
J.C.Verma, J.
Anil Kumar Prasad - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 2219 of 1996, 4124 of 1996, 1567 of 1996 and 1568 of 1996.
Decided On : 21-05-1998