Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 28452
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. Muhamed Mustaque, Shoba Annamma Eapen, JJ
RASAK P.M., – Appellant
Versus
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, – Respondent
OP(KAT) 77 2021
MATHEW KURIAKOSE, J.KRISHNAKUMAR, MONI GEORGE, SHRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, ADV.VINITHA.B
The court established that adherence to specified qualifications within recruitment notifications is mandatory and can only be contested on grounds of legal invalidity or incompetence.
Headnote:
Qualification - Driver-Grade II Recruitment - Special Rules - Driving License Requirement - The court reaffirmed that stipulated qualifications, including a valid three-year driving license, are essential for eligibility for the position, emphasizing adherence to established recruitment protocols.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was excluded from the rank list for Driver-Grade II due to not possessing a valid driving license with badge for three years at the time of application, as per the notification requirements.
Finding of the Court:
The court concluded that the petitioner did not meet the required qualifications specified in the notification and that the Special Rules governing the qualifications were valid and enforceable.
Issues: Whether the requirement for a three-year valid driving license with badge constituted an essential qualification for the post, and if the petitioner could challenge the validity of the Special Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that qualifications prescribed in the recruitment rules must be met continuously and that the Special Rules can only be challenged if they exceed the legislative scope or are otherwise invalid.
Final Decision: The Original Petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 12th day of October, 2023 A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J This original petition is filed by the applicant aggrieved by non-inclusion in the rank list for the post of Driver-Grade II (LDV) in District wise recruitment in Idukki District. By Ext.P5 order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, the original application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.
2. The notification refers to qualification which are as follows:
II. Qualification for the said post as per Annexure A13 notification are:
1. A pass in Standard VII/III Forum
2. Must possess valid Driving Licence of three years standing to drive Light Motor Vehicle with Driver’s badge
3. Proficiency in Driving Light motor vehicles which is to be proved in a practical test conducted by KPSC during the course of selection. Only those who pass H test are eligible for Road test.
3. The petitioner was short listed initially and after scrutiny of the records, it was found that the the petitioner was not having the prescribed qualification No.2, which stipulates that the candidates must possess valid driving licence for three years standing to drive Light Motor Vehicle with Driver’s badge.
4. The notification for the said post was issued in the gazette on 15.03.2014 and the last date for receipt of the application was on 16.04.2014. Admittedly, the badge of the petitioner was expired on 18.12.2013 and it was renewed only on 05.05.2014. As the petitioner did not have badge continuously for three years as on the date of application, the petitioner was not included in the rank list. The petitioner approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal passed an interim order placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan v.
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, reported in [(2017) 14 Supreme Court Cases 663], and direct the Public Service Commission (for short “the PSC”) to include the petitioner in the rank list. PSC challenged the above interim order in O.P.(KAT) No.153 of 2020.
5. The Division Bench of this Court, noting that the requirement of badge is a stipulation under the Special Rules and notification, the Tribunal could not have passed such an interim order, but liberty was given to the petitioner to challenge the Special Rules and set aside the interim order. Thereafter, the petitioner amended the relief by incorporating a challenge against the Special Rules. The Tribunal declined interference and accordingly, this original Petition has been filed.
6. We heard Adv. Mathew Kuriakose, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Adv.P.C.Sasidharan, the Standing Counsel for the PSC.
7. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, in the light of Mukund Dewangan (Supra), the badge is not a requirement for driving light motor vehicle and therefore, Special Rules have to be struck down. Apart from that, the learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that he had licence and the renewal of badge relates back to the date of expiry. Therefore, it has to be assumed that he had a valid badge for continuous three years. It is further pointed out that PSC directed to produce the petitioner’s document and it is mentioned that the petitioner has to produce all the documents available as on 18.06.2014. Therefore, it is submitted that as on 18.06.2014, the petitioner possessed a valid licence and badge.
8. It may not be a requirement to possess a badge for any insurance claims in the light of the Apex Court judgment in Mukund Dewangan (Supra). But it does not mean that the Special Rules can be challenged on that ground. The challenge to Special Rules can be sustained only when stipulations in the Rules are ultravires or pointing out the incompetency to stipulate such rule offending any parent Act. The parameters of challenging Statutory Rules are well defined. If the State stipulates a qualification over and above what is normally required to do an activity related to driving, that does not mean that the stipulation itself become unnecessary and arbitrary. The wisdom of
