Dismissed

Manojkumar.v.T. v. Kpsc

Kerala HC15 Jul 2009WA/655/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal filed by an applicant for a Reserve Driver post, upholding the Single Judge's decision. The court held that the applicant was ineligible because he did not possess a valid driving licence on the last date for receipt of applications, rendering his application invalid despite the grace period provision.

What did the court decide?

None; the Writ Appeal was dismissed affirming the Single Judge's judgment that removed the petitioner's name from the rank list due to ineligibility.

Manojkumar.v.T. Vs Kpsc — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2009 / 24TH ASHADHA 1931

¶5

WA.No. 655 of 2009()

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.33082/2007 Dated 10/12/2007

¶7

APPELLANT: PETITIONER

¶8

MANOJKUMAR V.T., AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.THANKAPPAN V.K., VATTATHOTTIYIL HOUSE, NENMENIKUNNU P.O., CHEERAL VIA., WAYANAD.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEWS

¶10

RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS

¶11

KPSC, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, KERALA GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

KSRTC, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS, STANDING COUNSEL, KPSC-R1 JOHNSON P. JOHN, STANDING COUNSEL, KSRTC-R3 GOVT. PLEADER SMT. R. BINDU FOR R2

¶15

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR

¶17

& C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.

¶18

--------------------------------------------W.A. NO. 655 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------------

¶19

Dated this the 15^th day of July, 2009

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Balakrishnan Nair, J.

¶22

The writ petitioner is the appellant. He was an applicant for appointment to the post of Reserve Driver in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. The Kerala Public Service Commission invited applications for the said post on 31.12.2004. The last date for receipt of applications was 31.1.2005. The petitioner was having a valid driving licence. Its validity expired on 27.12.2004. By virtue of the proviso to Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the licence will remain valid for a further period of one month from the date of expiry. If that be so, the licence of the petitioner was valid upto 27.1.2005. He submitted the application on 22.1.2005. That means, he was having a valid driving licence on the date of submission of the application, as stipulated in Ext.P1 notification. He later renewed his driving licence on 9.6.2005. The petitioner was admitted for the written test on 18.6.2005 and was included

¶23

¶24

in the short list published by the P.S.C. Thereafter, he underwent a physical test and a practical test. He cleared them. So, the petitioner was included in the rank list published on 14.6.2007. Later, he was served with Ext.P7 communication directing him to produce the originals of all the documents, including the driving licence. The petitioner produced the originals of the documents. Then he was served with Ext.P8 notice dated 31.8.2007, stating that he was not having a valid driving licence on the last date for receipt of the application and that it is proposed to remove his name from the rank list. The petitioner submitted Ext.P9 explanation, which was followed by Exts.P13 and P11 representations dated 28.9.2007 and 1.10.2007 respectively. At this stage, the writ petitioner approached this Court seeking appropriate reliefs to enable him to be selected to the post of Reserve Driver.

¶25

According to the appellant/writ petitioner, he had the requisite qualifications notified as per Ext.P1. The respondents resisted the Writ Petition, contending that the proviso to Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act relied on by the appellant does not have any application, while determining the qualifications for selection to the post of Reserve Driver by the Public Service Commission. Even assuming that the said proviso is followed, the petitioner did not have a valid driving licence on the last date for receipt of applications. So, going by condition No.19 of the

¶26

¶27

general conditions that the applicant should have all the requisite qualifications on the last date fixed for receipt of applications, the petitioner was not entitled to get any relief, it was submited. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, upheld the contentions of the Public Service Commission and dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence, this appeal.

¶28

We heard Sri. V. Philip Mathews, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel Sri. Alexander Thomas for the Public Service Commission. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Public Service Commission v. Biju, 2008(2) K.L.T. 380 , wherein it was held that the proviso to Section 14(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act will apply to the validity of a driving licence, even in cases of selection to the said post by the Public Service Commission. So, it can be taken that the appellant was qualified on the date he submitted the application, it is submitted.

¶29

But, we notice that the last date for receipt of applications was 31.1.2005 and by that time, the grace period derived from the proviso to Section 14(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act also expired. So, going by the general conditions, governing receipt of applications for selection by the Public Service Commission, that the candidate must be qualified on the last date fixed for receipt of applications, the appellant was ineligible to

¶30

¶31

apply for the post. His application was, therefore, invalid. Even assuming that the licence was valid on the date of submission of the application, the said application cannot be considered by the Public Service Commission, in view of the fact that the appellant was not qualified on the last date fixed for receipt of the applications. Therefore, we find nothing wrong with the decision of the learned Single Judge.

¶32

Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed.

¶33

(K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR) JUDGE

¶34

(C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE

¶35

sp/

¶36

¶37

K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.

¶38