2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6300

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIKRAM KUMAR JHA – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – Respondent
W.P.(C)-5994/2022

A valid driving licence (not a learner's licence) is a mandatory eligibility condition for male candidates for the post of Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police under statutory rules; non-compliance on the prescribed date leads to disqualification, and the condition is not discriminatory as it applies only to male candidates due to different recruitment rules for male and female posts.

Headnote:(A) Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980 - Rules 7 and 14(a) - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 2(10), 2(19), 3, 8, 9 - Recruitment to post of Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police - Condition requiring male candidates to possess a valid driving licence for Light Motor Vehicle (Motorcycle and Car) on the date of Physical Endurance & Measurement Tests - No such condition for female candidates under Rule 14(a) - Challenge of discrimination rejected as condition flows from statutory rules (Para 25) - Learner’s licence cannot be equated with a driving licence for eligibility (Paras 27-28) - Reliance on Alka Ojha v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, (2011) 9 SCC 438 (Para 28) - Delay in obtaining driving licence due to COVID-19 pandemic not excusable as candidate had sufficient time before notification (Para 33) - Equity cannot override statutory requirements (Para 32).

(B) Selection process - Mandatory eligibility condition - Non-compliance on prescribed date leads to disqualification - Subsequent acquisition of licence after the relevant date not acceptable even if delay attributable to COVID-19 - Petitioner offered alternative post in another force (Para 32).

Facts of the case:
The petitioner applied for the post of Sub-Inspector (Executive) Male in Delhi Police pursuant to a notification issued in 2019. The notification required male candidates to possess a valid driving licence for Light Motor Vehicle on the date fixed for Physical Endurance & Measurement Tests (PEMT). Female candidates were not subject to such a condition. The petitioner cleared Paper-I and appeared for PEMT on 24.12.2020, but had only a learner’s licence. He obtained a permanent driving licence on 26.03.2021 after shifting residence. Despite qualifying Paper-II and medical examination, his driving licence was not accepted at document verification, and he was disqualified for the Delhi Police post but selected for a similar post in another force. He challenged the condition as discriminatory and sought acceptance of his later-obtained licence.

Findings of Court:
The High Court held that the condition requiring a valid driving licence for male candidates is based on Rule 7 of the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980, and no such condition exists for female candidates under Rule 14(a). Therefore, the challenge of discrimination fails. The court further held that a learner’s licence is not equivalent to a driving licence, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Alka Ojha. The petitioner did not possess a valid driving licence on the date of PEMT, and the delay in obtaining it was not attributable to COVID-19 as he had ample time to apply earlier. The court declined to apply equitable principles as the petitioner had been offered an alternative post.

Issues: 1. Whether the requirement of a valid driving licence only for male candidates for the post of Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police is discriminatory? 2. Whether the petitioner’s disqualification for not possessing a valid driving licence on the date of PEMT is justified? 3. Whether a learner’s licence can satisfy the eligibility condition? 4. Whether the delay in obtaining the licence due to COVID-19 pandemic can be condoned?

Ratio Decidendi: The statutory rules (Rule 7) mandate that male candidates must possess a valid driving licence on the date of PEMT. A learner’s licence does not meet this requirement. The condition is not discriminatory because it is prescribed under separate rules for male and female posts. Equity cannot override statutory eligibility conditions. The petitioner’s failure to comply on the prescribed date results in disqualification.

Result: Petition dismissed. Pending application dismissed as infructuous. (Para 34)