IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 25TH OCTOBER 2011 / 3RD KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 22932 of 2011(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHUKOOR.M., S/O.MAJEEDKUTTY, AGED 32 YEARS, CHIRAYIL PUTHEN VEEDU, PERINADU (P.O), KOLLAM-691 601. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.RAJENDRAN NAIR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.M.R.SUDHEENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY, THULASI HILLS, PATTOM PALACE (P.O), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. R1 BY G.P.SRI.P.P.PADMALAYAN R2 BY S.C. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 22932 of 2011(N PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 11/7/2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TAKEN FROM THE INTERNET SITE OF PSC. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ADDENDUM NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TAKEN FROM THE INTERNET SITE OF PSC. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE DRIVING LICENCE NO.2/2804/1997 AND ITS PARTICULARS IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 1/7/2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CANDIDATES. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ENDORSEMENT OF REJECTION DATED 08.08.2011 OF THE SECTION OFFICER OF PSC CONTAINED IN THE PROFORMA FOR VERIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 31/05/2011 FOR DRIVER GRADE- II I VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS TAKEN FROM INTERNET SITE OF PSC. TKS // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.22932 of 2011 ---------------------------- Dated 25th October, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner was an applicant for appointment to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector under the Motor Vehicles Department. He submitted an application pursuant to Ext.P1 notification dated 11.7.2008 issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission. The last date for submission of application was 17.9.2008. As part of the selection process, the petitioner was directed to appear before the second respondent on 19.7.2011 at 9.30 a.m. for scrutiny of documents. Candidates including the petitioner were required to hold current driving licences on the last date of submission of the application viz., 17.9.2008 as also on the date of scrutiny of the documents viz., driving licences authorising to drive Motor Cycle, Heavy Goods Vehicles and Heavy Passenger Motor Vehicles. The petitioner could not make available such a current driving licence. Subsequently, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P5. It is evident from Ext.P5 that the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the driving licence possessed by the petitioner was not current on 17.9.2008, the last date for submission of the application pursuant to Ext.P1 notification. It is on being aggrieved by the rejection of his candidature for the said selection on the aforesaid reason that this writ petition has been filed mainly with the WP(C).No.22932/2011 2 following prayers:- “i. Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other writ order or direction quashing the endorsement of rejection of petitioner's candidature contained in Ext.P5. ii. issue a writ of Certiorari or any other writ order or direction quashing the clause `d' of the special instructions along with the Exhibit P4 communication to the effect that the licence obtained by the candidates should be current during 17/9/2008 and on the date on which the 2nd respondent scrutinize the same. iii. issue a writ of Certiorari or any other writ order or direction quashing Sl.No.7(4) of Ext.P1 if it really intends possession of effective licence as on the last date of submission of application. iv. Declare that petitioner is entitled to participate in the selection process to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector (Category 243/2008) notwithstanding the non-effectiveness of a portion of his licence on the last date of submission of application.” 2. Ext.P1 is the notification published by the second respondent inviting applications for appointment to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector. Clause 7(4) of Ext.P1 notification is relevant in the context of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this case and it reads thus:- “7.(4):- Must hold a driving licence authorizing him to drive Motor Cycle, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger motor vehicles.” (emphasis supplied) WP(C).No.22932/2011 3 3. The petitioner was holding licence No.2/2804/1997 authorizing him to drive light motor vehicles and motor cycle. Later, he was issued with driving licence authorizing him to drive heavy passenger motor vehicles and heavy goods motor vehicles on 22.1.2003. The contentions of the petitioner raised in paragraph 7 itself would reveal that the driving licence authorizing him to drive heavy vehicles was effective only from 22.1.2003 to 21.1.2006 and it was not current on 17.9.2008. Paragraph 7 of the writ petition, in so far as it is relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue involved in this case, reads thus:- “But the driving licence for Heavy vehicles granted to the petitioner was effective from 22/01/2003 to 21/01/2006 (3 years) and the petitioner could not renew the same from 22/01/2006 because he was abroad for another employment. The petitioner got renewed his Heavy vehicle licence on 21/1/2009 and the same is valid till 20/01/2012, that too without subjecting him any further test in accordance with Sec.15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.” (emphasis supplied) A perusal of the above extracted portion from paragraph 7 of the writ petition would reveal the fact that the licence authorizing the petitioner to drive heavy vehicles was effective from 22.1.2003 to 21.1.2006 and he had not got it renewed from 22.1.2006. It would also reveal that he got it renewed only on 21.1.2009. True that, it is valid till 20.1.2012. The contention of the petitioner is that in view of WP(C).No.22932/2011 4 the provisions under section 15 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 his application for renewal of the heavy vehicle licence was granted and the licence was renewed on 21.1.2009 without subjecting him to any further test. Relying on the aforesaid aspects, it is contended that, technically speaking, the licence of the petitioner authorizing him to drive heavy vehicles was not effective from 22.1.2006 to 20.1.2009 but considering that the renewal was effected simply by remitting the prescribed fees and without subjecting him to driving test no adverse consequence could flow from such non-renewal during the said period. The endorsement in Ext.P5 reads as follows:- “Heavy Duty Driving Licence not current as on the last date of receipt of application i.e., 17.9.2008, not qualified. May be rejected.” It was accepting the same that the petitioner's application was rejected. Relying on the aforementioned contentions and also the provisions under sections 9(3) and 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it is contended that the non-renewal of the driving licence could not attach any disqualification on the petitioner to drive the vehicle. Even after raising such contention in paragraph 8 of the writ petition, the petitioner himself admits the fact that non-possession of a valid driving licence would forbid a person from operating a vehicle on public road. The contention of the petitioner is that it only forbids such a person from WP(C).No.22932/2011 5 operating a vehicle on public road and even if he drives the vehicle on public road without an effective licence it would make him liable only to pay the fine as per the Kerala Police Act. In short, the contention of the petitioner is that the prescription and insistence for holding a current driving licence which is current on the last date of submission of the application pursuant to Ext.P1 and on the date of scrutiny of the documents and rejecting the candidature of the petitioner on the ground of non-satisfaction of the said conditions are illegal and liable to be interfered with. 4. As already noticed hereinbefore, clause 7(4) of Ext.P1 notification specifically enjoined that a candidate responding to Ext.P1 must hold a driving licence authorizing him to drive motor cycle, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger motor vehicles. It cannot be said that the said condition would not take in the stipulation that a candidate should possess a valid driving licence. The expression “must hold a driving licence authorizing him to drive motor cycle, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger motor vehicles” can only be understood as a condition requiring a prospective applicant to possess a valid driving licence to drive the said vehicles. A person who was issued with a driving licence authorizing him to drive motor cycle, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger motor vehicles and on expiry of its validity period, specifically mentioned in the said licence, cannot claim WP(C).No.22932/2011 6 that he holds a driving licence authorizing to drive such vehicles. The expression “must hold a driving licence authorizing to drive” can only be construed as a condition prescribing possession of a valid and current driving licence. The person who is not holding a valid licence cannot claim that he is authorized to drive vehicles on public road. The word `authorise' means to confer authority upon; empower etc.. The word `authority' means the right to act officially. The very provisions relied on by the petitioner would reveal that driving of a vehicle by a person not possessing current licence would entail penal consequence. The gravity of punishment is irrelevant in the context of the case. When that be the consequence, such a person cannot claim that he is authorised to drive during the period of non-renewal of licence as he would not having the authority to drive a vehicle during such period. 5. In the decision in Jaya v. Suchit (2010 (2) KLT 709) a Division Bench of this Court held that qualification of a candidate for appointment has to be reckoned with reference to last date fixed for receipt of applications, unless otherwise specified. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashok v. Public Service Commission (2001 (2) KLT 788 (SC)) held that in cases of violation of conditions of notification the Public Service Commission would be justified in rejecting the applications. WP(C).No.22932/2011 7 6. The learned standing counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that in all selections made by the Kerala Public Service Commission the qualifications of candidates are reckoned with reference to the last date fixed for receipt of applications. In this case, admittedly the last date for receipt of applications pursuant to Ext.P1 notification was 17.9.2008. Admittedly, on that day heavy duty driving licence possessed by the petitioner was not current and valid. Therefore, the subsequent action of renewing the same from 21.1.2009 would not and could not validate the application submitted by the petitioner in the circumstances expatiated above. Therefore, the petitioner cannot legally raise any grievance regarding the rejection of his application citing the aforesaid reason. In short, I find no illegality in the action on the part of the second respondent in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner as per Ext.P5, as regards the selection initiated as per Ext.P1. In short, the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs sought for. There is no merit in this writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS