Petitioner challenged rejection for a Driver post due to holding only a light motor vehicle licence. Court dismissed petition relying on separate order and Motor Vehicles Act distinctions, noting advertised requirement was not met.
Petition dismissed without recording separate reasons.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5525/2021
Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Ranjeet Ram, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Ward No. 03, Rawatsar, Hanumangarh (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jaidev Singh Bhati For Respondent(s) : Dr. Sachin Acharya with Mr. Manvendra Singh
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Order
20/10/2021
The petitioner had applied for the post of Driver, for which an advertisement was issued by the High Court Administration on 22.07.2020. The petitioner holds a valid licence for light motor vehicle but not for transport vehicle. The petitioner has, therefore, been declared ineligible.
In a separate order passed today in Neelam Kanwar vs.
Rajasthan High Court [D.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.4565/2021] , we have considered this issue and dismissed the petition making some observations. The order reads as follows:
“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
(2 of 3)
[CW-5525/2021]
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.
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 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.
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
(3 of 3)
[CW-5525/2021]
transport vehicle, the requirement for periodical renewal is more stringent.
In the result, the petition is dismissed.”
Under the circumstances, without recording separate reasons, the petition is also dismissed.
(SANDEEP MEHTA),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ
9-MohitTak/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a petitioner holding only a light motor vehicle licence is ineligible for a driver post requiring a transport vehicle licence.
Whether the High Court Administration can reject a candidate for failing to meet advertised qualification regarding driving licence type.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mukund Devagan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.Referred¶17
Mukund Devagan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. [2017 (14) SCC 663] · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Ranjeet Ram
Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur
Registrar (Exam.), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur
Akil Kureshi
Sandeep Mehta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
