A candidate must fulfill all mandatory eligibility qualifications, such as possessing a valid permanent driving license, strictly by the cut-off date specified in the recruitment notification, and a learner's license does not satisfy this essential condition for recruitment to a disciplined force.

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :

In the present Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-

(i) Declare and hold that the action of the respondents in withdrawing the offer of appointment/ canceling the candidature of the applicant for the post of Sub-Inspector (Exe.) in Delhi Police is illegal, arbitrary and in contravention to the extant recruitment rules. And

(ii) Quash and set aside Clause 7.7 (to limited extent) of advertisement notice dated 10.08.2022, whereby the condition of possessing valid Driving License for LMV (Motorcycle & Car) was prescribed in contravention to the recruitment rules (Rule 7 of Delhi Police (Appointment & Recruitment) Rules, 1980) for the post of Sub-Inspector (Exe.) in Delhi Police. And

(iii) Direct the Respondents to restore the offer of appointment/ candidature of the Applicant to the post of Sub-Inspector (Exe.) in Delhi Police and consequently appoint him to the post of Sub-Inspector (Exe.) in Delhi Police with all consequential benefits viz. pay and allowances, seniority, fixation of pay etc. And

(iv) In the event of non-grant of above noted reliefs, if not found legally possible, it is prayed that the directions be issued to the respondents to appoint the applicant to the post of Sub-Inspector (GD) in CISF as per his merit and further accord all the consequential benefits arising therefrom viz. pay and allowances, seniority, fixation of pay etc. And

(v) Award cost in favor of the Applicant and against the respondents. And/ or

(vi) Pass any further order, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit, just equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had appeared for recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector (GD) in CAPF/Delhi Police, for which the prescribed educational qualification is graduation. Attention is drawn to Clause 7.7 of the advertisement, which reads as under:-

“7.7 For the post of Sub Inspector in Delhi Police only: Male candidates must possess a valid Driving License for LMV (Motorcycle and Car) on the dale fixed for Physical Endurance and Measurement Tests. However, the candidates who do not have a Valid Driving License for LMV (Motorcycle and Car) are eligible for all other posts in CAPFs.”

Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant successfully qualified the Tier-I and Tier-II examinations and thereafter appeared in the Physical Endurance and Measurement Test (PEMT), where his documents were also verified. Subsequently, an offer of appointment was issued to him. However, he has been denied joining on the ground that he did not fulfill the requisite qualifications under Clause 7.7 of the advertisement.

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the Physical Endurance and Measurement Test, in terms of Clause 7.7, was conducted on 06.02.2023, and as on that date, the applicant was required to possess a valid driving licence for LMV (Motorcycle and Car).

Learned counsel further contended that the applicant had obtained a learner’s licence valid from 09.07.2022 to 08.01.2023. However, he could not qualify the driving test for obtaining a permanent driving licence during that period. Thereafter, he again obtained a learner’s licence valid from 18.01.2023 to 17.07.2023.

The bone of contention of the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant possessed a valid learner’s driving license on the date of PET/PST (06.02.2023) and therefore satisfied the eligibility condition prescribed in the advertisement for the post of Sub-Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police. It is contended that the cancellation of his appointment on the ground that he did not possess a valid driving license is arbitrary and unjustified, especially when the delay in obtaining the permanent license occurred due to non-availability of driving test slots, which was beyond the applicant’s control. In support of this contention,