IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH.

213 CWP-25949-2018 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 05.02.2025.

SURESH KUMAR ... Petitioner(s)

Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ... Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ.

PRESENT: Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Shivoy Dhir, Senior Panel Counsel, for the respondents.

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J (ORAL)

Challenging the order dated 22.9.2018, vide which the application of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Driver Road Roller has been rejected, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

2 Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents had issued an advertisement No.1 of 2016 for appointment to various posts including that of the Driver Road Roller (Ordinary Grade) and the last date for submission of the application form was 20.12.2016. He contends that the petitioner was a Matriculate and his date of birth as recorded in the Matriculation Certificate is 09.08.1995. The petitioner had in his possession a light motor vehicle driving licence from March 2015 and worked as a Road Roller operator from August 2016 to December 2017. He contends that the petitioner being fully eligible had applied for the aforesaid post of driver road roller in the category of scheduled caste since he possessed the experience of road roller operations. The application of the petitioner was shortlisted and on noticing that the petitioner was eligible, he was called to the Centre on 08.03.2018 to produce the documents regarding his educational qualifications and experience etc. The petitioner was thereafter ordered to undergo physical test which was also successfully completed. The petitioner eventually appeared in the trade test on 12.03.2018 and cleared the same. In the result so declared, the petitioner was held to be successful and was placed at Sr. No.37 of the provisionally selected candidates list. He secured more marks than the general category candidate and was thus to be considered under the unreserved category. He contends that the petitioner was called for the medical examination and eventually the call letter was received by him on 16.08.2018. He then appeared in the medical examination held on 22.09.2018 and was then told that the petitioner did not possess the valid driving license and thus did not fulfill the eligibility conditions. The candidature of the petitioner was accordingly cancelled vide impugned order dated 22.09.2018. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has wrongly been ousted without considering that he had participated in the entire selection process and had duly qualified for the said post. Having successfully undertaken all the written/medical examination, there was no reason for declining appointment of the petitioner especially when the petitioner had already submitted an application for upgradation of his driving license to the licensing authority.

3 Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, refers to the reply filed by way of an affidavit of IC No.51117F Rank: Col. S.P. Singh, wherein while not disputing the dates and events referred above, it is submitted that at the time of scrutiny of the documents before conducting the medical examination, it was found that the licence attached with the application was LMV-CAB/LMV-GV whereas as per the advertisement No.1 of 2016 published by the respondents specified the essential qualifications that an applicant should possess a Heavy Motor Vehicle License or Roller driving licence; or having passed Class II Course for Driver Plant and Mechanical Transport as laid down in Defence Services Regulations (Qualification Regulations for Soldier). The eligibility was to be seen as on the last date of submission of the application which was 20.12.2016. The petitioner produced the heavy driving licence at the time of medical examination with the validity from 21.02.2017, hence, he was thus not fulfilling the eligibility conditions as on the last date of sub