Manoj Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. S.K.Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Sr. Panel Counsel, Govt. of India, for the respondents. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of the order dated

17.05.2007 (Annexure P-4) and the order dated 27.11.2007 (Annexure P- 10) passed by respondent No. 3, vide which the candidature of the petitioner was ordered to be rejected by the respondents on the ground that the petitioner was not holding a valid driving license and that he had misrepresented that his temporary address was 124 Battalion, CRPF, CWP No. 4654 of 2008 2 Imphal, Manipur while obtaining the driving license for heavy vehicle. Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is not the case of the respondents that the driving license, which has been issued to the petitioner, was not issued by the competent authority. On verification of the driving license, which was issued to the petitioner, it was found that the competent authority had issued the driving license to the petitioner. That being so, the license issued by the competent authority would be a valid license for all intents and purposes.

The appointing authority could not sit over the validity or otherwise of the driving license when it has been issued by a competent authority in accordance with law and the license having been found to be genuine, the candidature of the petitioner could not be rejected by the respondents. His further contention is that the petitioner had not misled or given any wrong information to the licensing authority by giving the address as 124 Battalion, CRPF, Imphal, Manipur. It was only a temporary address which was given by the petitioner and after the petitioner having been found to be having the required driving skills, he was issued heavy vehicle driving license by the competent authority. In any case, he submits that in the light of the fact that a driving test of the petitioner was conducted by the respondents also and his driving skills were found to be good, which led to his selection, there is no ground at this stage to reject his candidature merely on the ground that the license issued to him by the competent authority was not in accordance with Section 7 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 (for short 'the Act').

On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submits that a person to be eligible for appointment in Government service is required to possess a valid license. A valid license not only means a license which CWP No. 4654 of 2008 3 has been issued by a competent authority but the same is required to be issued in accordance with law. He contends that the information, which was supplied by the petitioner to the licensing authority at Manipur, Imphal, was incorrect as he had given his temporary address as 124 Battalion, CRPF, Imphal, Manipur, which on verification was found that the petitioner never resided at the said given address. In any case, he submits that the driving license issued to the petitioner is not a valid license for the reason that the petitioner was issued a light motor vehicle license (LMV) on

29.11.2005 and the heavy motor vehicle license (HMV) was issued to him on 02.02.2006 i.e. just after completion of 2 months and 5 days whereas the requirement, as per Section 7 of the Act is that the person should be holding a light motor vehicle license (LMV) for at least one year. The license having been issued in total violation of the Statute cannot be, by any stretch of imagination, termed as a valid license. He, on this basis, submits that the impugned orders passed by the respondents are just, well- reasoned and in accordance with law and, therefore, do not call for any interference by this Court. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. Even if the contention, as has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner, is accepted that the license has been issued by the competent authority as that authority is entitled to do so under the Act and that the address, which has been given by the petitioner, was a temporary address only, still the requirement of Section 7 of the Act having not been complied with by the licensing authority, the license issued to the petitioner cannot be termed as a valid license.

Section 7 of the Motor Vehicles Act, CWP No. 4654 of 2008 4 1988 reads as follows:-

7. Restriction on the granting of learner's licenses for certain vehicles.- [(1) No person shall be granted a learner's license to drive a transport vehicle unless he has held a driving license to drive a light motor vehicle for at least one year.] (2) No person under the age of eighteen years shall be granted a learner's license to drive a motor cycle without gear except with the consent in writing of the person having the care of the person desiring the learner's license.

A perusal of the above provisions of the Act shows that for issuance of a learner's license for driving a transport vehicle, one year is the mandated minimum period for a person to be holding a light motor vehicle license (LMV). The light motor vehicle license issued to the petitioner is dated 29.11.2005 and, therefore, the petitioner would have been eligible to apply for and grant of transport vehicle learner's license only on 29.11.2006.

The transport vehicle license dated 02.02.2006, which has been issued to the petitioner which is much before the completion of one year from the date of issue of light motor vehicle license which would have made him eligible for applying for a transport vehicle learner's license, cannot be called valid. That being so, the license as obtained by the petitioner and in his possession although issued by a competent authority under the Act cannot be termed to be a valid driving license. The license being not a valid one, the petitioner does not fulfil the basic requirement for appointment as Driver. In case a candidate does not fulfil the basic requirement for appointment to a post, the rejection of the CWP No. 4654 of 2008 5 candidature by the appointing authority cannot be said to be illegal or unjustified. dismissed. Finding no merit in the present petition, the same stands January 28, 2010 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE