THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 36939 OF 1998 DATE: 22-1-2008 Between: Rapaka Jagan Mohan Reddy ….. Petitioner And 1. The Govt. of A.P. rep. by its Regional Transport Officer/ Licencing Authority, Mancheriyal, Adilabad District and 3 others . .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 36939 OF 1998 ORDER: Questioning the action of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioner, vide proceedings dated 16.7.1998, as arbitrary and illegal, the present writ petition is filed. In the impugned proceedings dated 16.7.1998, the Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Adilabad took note of the order of posting of the petitioner as a daily wage driver in proceedings dated 17.4.1997 wherein it was specifically stipulated that the petitioner’s engagement was subject to verification of antecedents, certificates and driving licence and, in case the certificates were found to be false at a later date, his services were liable for termination. The petitioner was engaged with effect from 18.4.1997. Thereafter, the licence of the petitioner was verified from the concerned Regional Transport Authority and was found not to be genuine. The Regional Transport Authority, Aurangabad informed the Vigilance and Security Officer, Karimnagar Zone that the driving licence number did not tally as per their records. Based on the report, a show cause notice dated 24.6.1998 was issued. In his explanation, the petitioner stated that he had obtained driving licence from licensing authority, Aurangabad on 1.6.1984 after undergoing driving test and later it was renewed in Adilabad and Manchiryal in Andhra Pradesh. He further stated that he had been to the R.T.A. Office, Aurangabad and enquired about the licence but they had informed that the records were not traceable. The Depot Manager observed that the petitioner had not established that the licence was genuine and that Regional Transport Authority, Aurangabad had categorically informed, in his letter dated 25.3.1998, that the driving licence number did not tally as per the records. After the Depot Manager came to the conclusion that the driving licence was not genuine, and as such the petitioner did have authority to drive the motor transport vehicle and to continue in the organization as a driver, his services were terminated and he was removed from service with effect from 16.7.1998. Sri P.Sridhar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, since the petitioner had put in service of more than 240 days after his engagement, his services could not have been terminated without complying with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. I must express my inability to agree. The Motor Vehicles Act permits a vehicle to be driven only by a person who has obtained a driving licence. The petitioner’s appointment as a driver on daily wages was subject to verification of the genuineness of the driving licence which was found not to be genuine. Since no person is entitled to drive a vehicle without a valid driving licence, and in as much as the very appointment of the petitioner is subject to verification of the genuineness of his driving licence, the mere fact that he was continued for more than 240 days in the interregnum from the date of posting till the date of termination would not enure to his benefit nor can he claim continuance merely because he was continued to be engaged as a driver till his driving licence was verified, or contend that his services cannot be terminated. Such termination would fall within the scope of Section 2 (oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is well settled that exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary and this Court would exercise its discretion only in the larger public interest. The discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution India would not be exercised to aid persons who have obtained employment through illegal means by producing certificates which are not genuine. Sri P.Sridhar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner would request that the petitioner be given liberty to make a representation in case he has obtained a driving licence subsequent to the filing of the writ petition. This Court would not give any direction on mere assumptions and presumptions. There is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner had obtained a valid driving licence during the pendency of the writ petition. Even if he had that would not render the earlier driving licence submitted by him genuine nor can the action of the respondents-Corporation, in dispensing with his services on the ground that he had produced a driving licence which is not genuine, be faulted. Viewed from any angle, the writ petition does not necessitate interference in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________ 22-1-2008 asp