Dismissed

Neelam Kanwar v. Rajasthan High Court

Rajasthan HC20 Oct 2021CW/4565/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petition challenged the rejection of a candidate for a Driver post due to holding only a light motor vehicle licence. The court held that administrative requirements for higher weight transport vehicles are not met by a general light motor vehicle licence, as per statutory distinctions.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed, upholding the eligibility requirements set by the High Court Administration.

Neelam Kanwar Vs Rajasthan High Court — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4565/2021

¶3

Neelam Kanwar D/o Shri Bajrang Singh, Aged About 31 Years, By Caste Ranawat, Resident Of Village And Post Bhunas, Via Pur, District Bhilwara.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Rajasthan High Court, Through Its Registrar General. 2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur.

¶7

----Respondents

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surendra Singh Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Dr. Sachin Acharya with Mr. Manvendra Singh

¶9

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

¶10

Order

¶11

20/10/2021

¶12

The petitioner has applied for the post of Driver, for which an advertisement was issued by the High Court Administration on 22.07.2020. As per the recruitment rules as well as advertisement, in order to be eligible for appointment, the candidates had to have a valid driving licence for light motor vehicle as well as transport vehicle. The petitioner applied for the post after uploading a driving licence, which showed that she had a driving licence only for the purpose of light motor vehicle. She was allowed to participate in the screening test without verification of the eligibility. However, upon examination of her eligibility, the

¶13

(2 of 4)

¶14

[CW-4565/2021]

¶15

High Court Administartion was of the opinion that she was not qualified since she did not have a valid driving licence for transport vehicle. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this petition contending that her performance in the screening test would justify for calling her for further selection and she was otherwise qualified for the post in question.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner is holding a valid licence for light motor vehicle. This licence was uploaded along with her application for appointment. Learned counsel submitted that by virtue of judgment of the Supreme Court in Mukund Devagan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. [2017 (14) SCC 663] and on the basis of Circular dated 16.04.2018 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, a person holding a light motor vehicle licence would not require a separate licence for transport vehicle. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, thus, the petitioner was duly qualified and despite this, she was not called for further test.

¶17

On the other hand, the case of the High Court Administration is that the light motor vehicle and transport vehicle are not synonymous category. There are different provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act. There is clear distinction between the two. In particular, learned counsel for the respondents highlighted that even as per the Circular dated 16.04.2018, a person holding valid driving licence for light motor vehicle can drive transport vehicle only as long as unladen weight does not exceed 7500 kg. In case of the High Court advertisement, there was no such specification provided. In fact, the High Court Administration required that the

¶18

(3 of 4)

¶19

[CW-4565/2021]

¶20

Driver should be appointed who can drive the vehicle of which unladen weight may exceed 7500 kg. Also. It was precisely for this reason that the High Court Administration has clearly provided in the advertisement that the candidate, in order to be eligbile for appointment, must hold a valid licence for light motor vehicle as well as transport vehicle. In the present case, the petitioner does not satisfy the requirement.

¶21

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record, we find no reason to interfere. The High Court Administration has held the petitioner ineligible for appointment on the ground that she does not hold a valid driving licence for transport vehicle. The fact that no separate driving licence has been issued in favour of the petitioner is undisputed. By virtue of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mukund Devagan (supra) and Circular dated 16.04.2018 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, the petitioner may be eligible to drive a transport vehicle but only as long as unladen weight does not exceed 7500 kg. The requirement by the High Court Administration has to be borne in mind while testing the qualification of the candidates for appointment. We may also notice that Section 14(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act envisages that a licence of driving a transport vehicle would be effective for a period of 3 years and in case of other licence, the same would be effective for a period of 20 years from the date of issue, of course, subject to the ceiling of the age of the holder being 50 years. Thus, the Motor Vehicles Act also makes the clear distinction between the licence for transport vehicle and rest. In case of a

¶22

(4 of 4)

¶23

[CW-4565/2021]

¶24

transport vehicle, the requirement for periodical renewal is more stringent.

¶25

In the result, the petition is dismissed.

¶26

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ

¶27

3-MohitTak/-

Neelam Kanwar v. Rajasthan High Court

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neelam Kanwar v. Rajasthan High Court

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Vijay Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Pramod Soni Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajveer Vs State of Rajasthan

Devi Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Saket Jain Vs Urban Improvement Trust