IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 4132 of 2010 Surender Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents Present: Mr. A.K. Goyat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State. RANJIT SINGH J. 500 posts of Constable-Drivers were advertised on 21.07.2008. The petitioner being fully eligible had applied for the post. He annexed the driving licence issued by the Licensing Authority, Kurukshetra, in support of his claim for the said appointment. The petitioner, however, was not called for interview. The petitioner had approached the authorities when he was advised to wait as his case was under active consideration. It was given out that the petitioner was not entitled to drive Transport Light Motor Vehicle. The petitioner states that he has approached the licencing Authority when a duplicate copy of the licence mentioning the word LMV in place of car/jeep is issued. In any case, this was not the licence, which the petitioner produced alongwith his application. This rather is taken as another ground by the respondents to decline consideration of the claim of the petitioner for appointment. The original licence produced by the petitioner has been placed on record Civil Writ Petition No. 4132 of 2010 -2- as Annexure P-3. As per this, the petitioner is authorized to drive the following vehicles through out India:- “Non-Tr.M/Cycle, WG, LMV-NT, Valid upto 20-Jan-2020” The licence which the petitioner produced, thus, authorised him to drive Light Motor Vehicle but the non-transport vehicles only. The petitioner was being engaged to drive a transport vehicle. Accordingly, his claim for appointment was not considered. Counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no authority to issue Light Motor Vehicle licence for non-transport vehicles and this is in violation of the provisions of The Motor Vehicles Act. He has made reference to Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd versus Angal Kol and others AIR 2009 Supreme Court 2151. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that there is distinction between light motor vehicle and transport vehicle. A transport vehicle may be light transport vehicle but for the purpose of driving the same, a distinct licence is required to be obtained as is observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This observation rather would go against the petitioner. The submission that no distinction can be made under the Motor Vehicles Act to issue a licence for Light Motor Vehicle driving of a non-transport nature, thus, cannot be accepted. There is no merit in the writ petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. August 31, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE