6. Mr. Samanta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court by dint of the said judgment has promulgated the law which is a good law as on date, that there is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for consideration of educational qualification of the applicant/petitioner, as an essential prerequisite for grant of permit. So far as the writ petitioner Sri Sudip Kundu is concerned (in WPA No. 22270 of 2023), Mr Samanta has stated that after elimination of consideration of educational qualification of the candidates, the said writ petitioner would appear to have scored better than the private respondents. It is stated that therefore, had the respondent authorities considered the eligibility criteria of the respective candidates in its proper perspective, the petitioner as above would have been placed in the list, at a higher position and been eligible for grant of offer letter. Regarding the other petitioner, that is, Smt. Purnima Pal (in WPA No.22267 of 2023), Mr Samanta, has indicated that the concerned respondent authority has committed a gross error in considering experience of the said petitioner to be of 3 years. Instead, it is actually of 23 years and supporting documentary proof thereof has been placed before this Court in this case and also before the respondent Regional Transport Authority, at the time of consideration of her prayer for grant of permit. He alleges non consideration thereof by the said respondent. Thus, he is of the opinion that had the respondent authorities considered the petitioner’s actual experience as above, she would have been granted more marks, to find higher place in the list of candidates.
