Dismissed

Sudheesh T.S v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Jan 2008WP(C)/1975/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the rejection of the petitioner's application for the post of Reserve Driver because his heavy duty driving licence had expired before he applied. The court found that the petitioner did not hold a valid licence on the date of application or the last date for receipt of applications, holding him unqualified under the notification.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as it was bereft of merit; no findings of error in the stand taken by the PSC.

Sudheesh T.S Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2008 / 2ND MAGHA 1929

¶5

WP(C).No. 1975 of 2008(I)

PETITIONER:

SUDHESH T.S., AGED 38, S/O.SANKARANKUTTY, THEVARUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KARALAM, DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.T.N.MANOJ

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, REP; BY THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶14

KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY.

¶15

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRIVANDRUM.

¶16

THE R.T.O., O/O REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, REVENUE TOWER, IRINJALAKUDA.

¶17

BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC

¶18

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

V.GIRI, J

¶21

W.P.(C).1975/2008

¶22

Dated this the 22^nd day of January, 2008

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Petitioner responded to an application issued by the PSC for the post of Reserve Drivers to be appointed by the K.S.R.T.C. One qualification prescribed for the post was Heavy duty driving license issued by the competent authority. Petitioner's Heavy duty driving license was valid for the period from 2.1.1993 to 13.11.2003. Petitioner obtained employment in Gulf countries during the year 2003 and he came back only in the year 2005. Heavy duty licence expired in the meanwhile. Petitioner did not, therefore, hold Heavy duty licence from 13.11.2003 till 20.1.2005, when he made an application for selection to the post of Reserve Driver, as mentioned above. Apparently, petitioner applied for renewal of Heavy duty licence and it was renewed on 26.12.2005 with effect from 24.11.2005, which is evident from the endorsement contained in Ext.P2. Petitioner was thereafter treated as not qualified in terms of the notification by the PSC. Said action has been challenged in this writ petition.

¶25

W.P.(C).1975/2008

¶26

¶27

Notification in question is issued on 31.12.2004. Petitioner applied on 20.1.2005. The last date of receipt of application as mentioned in the notification is 31.1.2005. Admittedly, the period of validity of the Heavy duty licence, which expired on 13.11.2003, is thereafter renewed only with effect from 24.11.2005. This means, that on the date of application submitted by the petitioner and on the last date of receipt of application as mentioned in the notification, namely 31.1.2005, petitioner did not hold a valid Heavy duty driving licence.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Heavy duty driving licence was issued to the petitioner and it was not cancelled at any point of time. It should be deemed to be valid until it is cancelled. The licence must be treated as valid for the purpose of third party insurance and this principle has been upheld by the Full Bench of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., v.

¶29

W.P.(C).1975/2008

¶30

¶31

Paulose (2004 (1) KLT 8 [FB]) . Same principle should apply in the case of public employment requiring possession of valid driving licence as a qualification for the post notified.

¶32

This aspect was squarely considered by this Court in W.P.(C).23873/2005 and the decision was affirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.1416/2006. Same reasoning was followed by another learned Judge in W.P. (C).33082/2007. The issue is therefore, covered against the petitioner by the aforementioned judgments.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the question is whether the petitioner was disqualified on the date of the application and expiry of the period of the validity of the Heavy duty driving licence should be ignored in the light of the fact that licence was subsequently renewed. In my view, the question is whether the petitioner is qualified in terms of the notification and not whether he is disqualified as such.

¶34

W.P.(C).1975/2008

¶35

¶36

As I have mentioned above, the petitioner was not qualified, because he did not possess valid Heavy duty licence on the date of the notification and on the the last date of receipt of the application. For all these reasons, I do not find any error in the stand taken by the PSC. Writ Petition is bereft of merit and the same is dismissed.

¶37

V.GIRI, Judge

¶38

mrcs

Sudheesh T.S v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudheesh T.S v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.M.Abdul Gafoor Vs Raman Srivastava IPS

T.Ravi Vs Nelson

Sathian.K.T. Vs State of Kerala

N.K.Ayyappan Pillai Vs Secretary, Changanacherry Municipality

Usha.C.B Vs the Chairman, Kpsc

K.Raveendran Pillai Vs the State of Kerala