Allowed

Union of India v. Vishnu Thampi

Kerala HC3 Feb 2020WA/1543/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed the appeal of the Union of India. It held that a petitioner who lacked the statutory requirement of a public service badge at the time of application could not be permitted to participate in the selection process, even in reliance on a Supreme Court judgment regarding Light Motor Vehicle definitions.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal allowing the petitioners to participate in the skill test by setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissed.

Union of India Vs Vishnu Thampi — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶6

MONDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 14TH MAGHA, 1941

¶7

WA.No.1543 OF 2018

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.20462/2018 DATED 26-06-2018 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 26.06.2018

¶9

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 UNION OF INDIA

¶11

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF SPACE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI - 110001.

¶12

2 THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER (RMT) ANTHARIKSH BHAVAN, ISRO HEADQUARTERS, NEW BEL ROAD, BANGALURU, PIN-560094.

¶13

3 VIKRAM SARABHAI SPACE CENTRE DEPARTMENT OF SPACE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695022.

¶14

4 OFFICER IN HARGE THE RECRUITMENT AND REVIEW SECTION (ROOM NO.F11), ADMINISTRATIVE BLOCK, ATF AREA, VIKRAM SARABHAI SPACE CENTRE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -695022.

¶15

BY ADV.SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA

¶16

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

¶17

VISHNU THAMPI, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.THAMPI, REVATHY, ADICHANALLOOR P.O., KAITHAKUZHY, KOLLAM PIN-691573.

¶18

R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.A.NAVAS R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.K.SASIKUMAR

¶19

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-02-2020, THE COURT ON 03-02-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WA.No.1543 OF 2018

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 3rd day of February 2020

¶24

K. Vinod Chandran, J.

¶25

The petitioner is the Union of India, challenging the order of the learned Single Judge,

¶26

which directed the writ petitioner to be considered for selection by allowing him to participate in the skill test based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in

¶27

Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company

¶28

Limited [(2017) 4 SCC 663] . The rejection of the writ petitioner's candidature was for reason of

¶29

the writ petitioner not having a badge, ie. an authorisation as prescribed under Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for brevity, 'the Act'] to drive a transport vehicle.

¶30

2. The learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner contends that he had applied for the post of Light Motor Vehicle [LMV] Driver. The

¶31

WA.No.1543 OF 2018

¶32

¶33

definition of 'Light Motor Vehicle' as found in Section 2(21) takes in a transport vehicle, omnibus, motor car, tractor or road roller, the unladen weight of any of which does not exceed 7500 Kgms. For driving any of the vehicles, a person has to have a Learner's Licence or a Driving Licence as provided under Section 10 of

¶34

the Act. There were many category of vehicles provided under Section 10(2) of the Act, which included inter alia a LMV [Clause (d)], a medium goods vehicle [Clause (c)], a medium passenger motor vehicle [Clause (f)], a heavy goods vehicle [Clause (g)] and heavy passenger motor vehicle [Clause (h)]. By an amendment [Act 54/1994], inter alia there was a change in the category specified under Section 10(2). The medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods

¶35

vehicle and heavy passenger motor vehicle were together included under the category of

¶36

WA.No.1543 OF 2018 4

¶37

'transport vehicle'. In that context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforecited decision held that on and from the date of such amendment, a LMV includes a transport vehicle and the other categories provided in the definition clause, for which no separate authorisation is required under Section 3 of the Act. A separate authorisation under Section 3 of the Act would be required only for the transport vehicle as specified in Section 10(2) was the declaration. It is hence the contention of the petitioner that there could not be any specification of a badge. Annexure A1 is also referred to, to contend that a public service badge can be insisted only if it is statutory.

¶38

3. The learned ASGI points out that the notification clearly prescribes a public service badge as one of the requirements, since it was thought that only a person having experience in driving public service vehicles should be

¶39

WA.No.1543 OF 2018

¶40

¶41

considered for selection.

¶42

4. We bow to the declaration of the

¶43

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cited decision, but, notice that the notification having provided a condition, for possession of a public service badge, which is an authorisation issued under Section 3. There is no case set up by the writ petitioner that there was no public service badge issued by the Motor Vehicles Department after the Supreme Court judgment. In fact his specific case is that by the time the skill test materialised, he had a public service badge. It is admitted that at the time of application, the petitioner did not have a public service badge and hence did not fall within the four corners of the notification.

¶44

5. In this context we refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Zonal Office, Kochi & Others v. Aarya Babu & Another [(2019) 8 SCC 587] ,

¶45

WA.No.1543 OF 2018 6

¶46

wherein it was categorically held that a person, who does not fall within the specific requirements under the notification, cannot be permitted to be considered for selection by Courts on any grounds of equity or equalisation. The reasoning was also that in such circumstances those who were similarly situated to that particular person, would have been denied such consideration. We do not hence find any reason to allow the petitioner to participate in the selection, especially going by the specific condition in Annexure A2 notification under which the petitioner applied. It was only on his candidature being rejected, he turned around and claimed the specification to be not statutory.

¶47

6. The further contention based on Annexure A1, that the public service badge being not statutory, it could not have been prescribed, cannot be accepted. The selection procedure has been laid down in Annexure A1. In the present

¶48

WA.No.1543 OF 2018 7

¶49

case, the Department, which was appointing Drivers, felt that only a person having public service badge should be considered for selection. As the learned ASGI rightly submitted, it would be in the best interest of the organisation and the employees, who frequently travel in the vehicles, that a person appointed as Driver has some experience in driving public service vehicles. We cannot fault the condition prescribed by the Department carrying out the selection and there cannot be any stark violation found of the guidelines.

¶50

7. There is a further contention raised by

¶51

the learned Counsel as to there being a clear apportionment of marks as per Annexure A1, which has not been followed by the respondent. We are of the opinion that the petitioner cannot now raise

¶52

such a contention, since the petitioner's candidature itself is rejected.

¶53

WA.No.1543 OF 2018

¶54

¶55

We, on the above reasoning, allow the writ

¶56

appeal setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge. There is no order as to costs.

¶57

Sd/-

¶58