Allowed

The Kerala Public Service Commission v. Jaimon V.J.

Kerala HC17 Jun 2019OP(KAT)/49/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a writ petition by the Public Service Commission against an order of the Administrative Tribunal. The Court held that where a notification explicitly requires a current driving licence throughout all selection stages, the Tribunal was erroneous to ignore the applicant's lack of validity during the OMR test.

What did the court decide?

The original petition is allowed. The order of the Tribunal is set aside. The State Government is directed not to consider the respondent’s candidature.

The Kerala Public Service Commission Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶6

MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1941

¶7

OP(KAT).No.49 of 2018

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 3.11.2017 IN O.A.NO.820/2017 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶9

PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

¶10

THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.

¶11

BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC

¶12

RESPONDENT/APPLICANT:

¶13

JAIMON V.J., AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.JACOB.V.V., RESIDING AT VADAKKOOT HOUSE, KUNDANNUR P.O.,THRISSUR, KERALA - 680 590.

¶14

BY ADVS. P.NANDAKUMAR, SRI.S.ANEESH SMT.AMRUTHA SANJEEV

¶15

SRI.P.DEEPAK, AMICUS CURIAE

¶16

THIS OP(KAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.06.2019, THE COURT ON 17.06.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

OP(KAT)No.49 of 2018

“CR”

Judgment

Chitambaresh, J.

1.One of the qualifications prescribed for appointment to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector in Annexure A1 notification dated 26.12.2014 published by the Public Service Commission (PSC) is as follows:

¶23

“7.Qualifications:

¶24

xxxxxxxxxxxx

¶25

xxxxxxxxxxxx

¶26

xxxxxxxxxxxx

¶27

Must hold a current valid driving licence authorising him to drive Motor cycle, Heavy Goods Vehicles and Heavy Passenger Motor Vehicles.

¶28

Note: Candidates shall possess a current Driving Licence throughout all the stages of selection process as on the last date of application, OMR Test, Practical Test, Interview etc.” (emphasis supplied)

¶29

The following are the category of the vehicles and the dates on which the Driving Licence was originally issued to the respondent

¶30

OP(KAT)No.49 of 2018

¶31

¶32

and its validity renewed evidenced by the particulars in Annexure

¶33

A2 Driving Licence:

¶34

Class of vehicle	With effect from	Valid from	Valid upto
1.Motor cycle with	17/08/09
gear
2.Light Motor Vehicle	17/08/09
3.Heavy Passenger	23/02/12	17/08/15	16/08/35
Motor Vehicle
4.Heavy Goods Motor	23/02/12	17/08/15	16/08/18
Vehicle

¶35

The PSC points out that the respondent did not possess a current Driving Licence authorising him to drive Heavy Goods Vehicles and Heavy Passenger Motor Vehicles as on the date of OMR Test (30.4.2015).

¶36

2.The respondent asserts that he possessed a current Driving Licence to drive the vehicles aforesaid as on the last date of application, Practical Test and Interview which alone is relevant and material. Reliance is placed on the judgment in S.G.Vaisakhan and another v. Kerala Public Service Commission and another

¶37

OP(KAT)No.49 of 2018

¶38

¶39

[Civil Appeal No.8391/2017(SC)] wherein it is held as follows:

¶40

“Leave granted.

¶41

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusal of the record, we find that the only objection to the candidature of the appellants is that during the written test, the appellants did not have current and valid driving licences because the same have expired.

¶42

It is not disputed that on the other relevant dates, such as, the last date for receipt of application and even during the practical test, the appellants had current and valid driving licences.

¶43

In these circumstances, we see no reason why the appellants ought to be denied the opportunity of being considered for appointment to the post of Police Constable Driver (Armed Police Battalion).

¶44

Hence, we allow this appeal and direct the Kerala Public Service Commission to advise the State Government accordingly. The State Government shall include the appellants' name in the rank list and act on the basis of the rank list.”(emphasis supplied)

¶45

It is the alternative contention of the respondent that his driving licence was current and valid during the relevant period though the Driver's Badge was omitted to be renewed in the interregnum

OP(KAT)No.49 of 2018

which is immaterial.

3.The Kerala Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) accepted the contentions of the respondent and has by Ext.P2 order directed the PSC to interview the respondent for inclusion in the ranked list at the appropriate place. The PSC challenges Ext.P2 order pointing out that the respondent did not possess a current Driving Licence throughout all stages of selection process which is stipulated. We heard Mr.P.C.Sasidharan, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr.P.Nandakumar, Advocate for the respondent as well as Mr.P.Deepak, Advocate as amicus curiae.

¶50

4.The decisions in Maheen v. State of Kerala [2013(3) KLT 639(DB)] and Kerala Public Service Commission v. Sasikumar [2013 (4) KLT 315(DB)] are relied on by the PSC to buttress its contention. The notifications therein respectively insisted on the Driving Licence to be current on the date of application and the Driving Licence with Badge to be valid on the date of Practical Test. The applicants therein did not possess the same at the material time and hence were found disentitled to be included in the ranked list

¶51

OP(KAT)No.49 of 2018

¶52

¶53

as per the notifications published. Vaisakhan's case arose out of Vaisakhan and another v. Kerala Public Service Commission and another [ILR 2016(2) Kerala 658(DB)] wherein the facts are narrated in detail. It is profitable to extract the notification therein inviting applications for appointment to the post of Police Constable Driver in regard to the educational qualification as follows:

¶54

“(a) Educational

¶55

(1) General.- (i) Must possess SSLC or its equivalent qualification.

¶56

(ii) Must possess a current duty vehicle licence with badge. Driving Licence issued after 16-1-1979 must have endorsement both for Heavy Goods and Heavy passenger Vehicles and the applications with only one endorsement will be summarily rejected (Vide amendment No.47/78 to the Motor Vehicle Act).

¶57

(iii) Proficiency in Driving Heavy Motor Vehicles (to be proved by a Practical Test conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission).

¶58

Note.- Possession of licence for driving Motor Cycle shall be a desirable qualification.” (emphasis supplied)

¶59

OP(KAT)No.49 of 2018

¶60

¶61

The notification in Vaisakhan's case is different from that in the instant case which insists on possessing a current Driving Licence throughout all stages of selection process which has to be adhered to. All the stages of selection process have been clarified as on the (i) last date of application, (ii) OMR Test, (iii) Practical Test and (iv) Interview in Annexure A1 notification. But the notification in Vaisakhan's case only insisted on possessing a current Heavy Duty Vehicle Licence with Badge and not throughout all stages of selection process. This is precisely why the Supreme Court held therein that possessing a current Driving Licence as on the last date of the application and during the Practical Test would suffice.

¶62

5.It may be noticed that Section 2(47) of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (Act) defines 'transport vehicle' to mean a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle. The vehicles are specifically defined in Sections 2(35), 2(14), 2(11) and 2(33) of the Act respectively and heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger motor vehicles fall in that category. There is no doubt that the licence insisted in

¶63

OP(KAT)No.49 of 2018

¶64

¶65

Annexure A1 notification is to drive a transport vehicle which shall be effective for a period of three years under Section 14(2) of the Act. The proviso to Section 14(2) of the Act clarifies that the licence would continue to be effective for a grace period of thirty days notwithstanding its expiry. The contention of the respondent that a licence to drive a transport vehicle is not insisted and that his licence shall be effective for a period of twenty years is totally unacceptable.

¶66

6.The following are the relevant dates to test whether the respondent possessed a current Driving Licence during the entire spectrum of his employment in view of the explicit wording in Annexure A1 notification:

¶67

Sl.No.	Events	Date
1	Last date of application	28/01/15
2	OMR Test	30/04/15
3	Practical Test	20/08/15
4	Interview	21/04/17

¶68

OP(KAT)No.49 of 2018

¶69

¶70

It is evident that the licence of the respondent to drive heavy passenger motor vehicle and heavy goods motor vehicle had expired after three years on 22.2.2015 which were renewed only from 17.8.2015. The irresistible conclusion therefore is that the respondent did not possess a current Driving Licence on 30.4.2015 on which date was the OMR Test conducted by the PSC. It cannot by any stretch of imagination be held that the respondent possessed a current Driving Licence throughout all stages of selection process and hence was qualified. The Tribunal erred in mixing up the issue of Licence with Driver's Badge which is only an authorisation to drive transport vehicles as per the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Annexure A1 notification does not make any mention of the Driver's Badge and insisted only on a current Driving Licence which the respondent lacked during the material time.

¶71

7.The reversing judgment of the Supreme Court in Vaisakhan's case may apply to cases where the necessity to possess a current Driving Licence throughout all stages of selection process is not insisted. That an applicant should have a current Driving Licence

¶72

OP(KAT)No.49 of 2018

¶73

¶74

during the 'entire spectrum of his employment' is not of universal application and depends very much on the notification. The dictum in Vaisakhan's case does not apply to the case on hand when current Driving Licence throughout all stages of selection process is insisted in Annexure A1 notification. We therefore set aside Ext.P2 order of the Tribunal in so far as it directed the PSC to consider the candidature of the respondent in exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.

¶75

The original petition is allowed. No costs.

¶76

Sd/V. CHITAMBARESH, JUDGE

¶77

Sd/ASHOK MENON, JUDGE

Sha/120619

OP(KAT)No.49 of 2018