IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.2888 OF 2010 JITENDRA KUAMR, SON OF BASANT SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA RAM KRISHNA NAGAR, POLICE STATION RAM KRISHNA NAGAR, DISTRICT PATNA VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, OLD SECRETARIAT BUILDING, PATNA 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT, OLD SECRETARIAT BUILDING, PATNA 3. THE STATE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, VISHESHWARAIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 4. THE SECRETARY, TRANSPORT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, VISHESHWARAIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 5. THE BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, VETERINARY COLLEGE CAMPUS, PATNA 6. THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, VETERINARY COLLEGE CAMPUS, PATNA 7. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, VETERINARY COLLEGE CAMPUS, PATNA …………………………………………………………………….RESPONDENTS ********** 3 28/04/2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. There are three reasons for rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector. The first reason is that the companies from which he has obtained the experience certificate are not registered under the Factories Act. As per the statement made by the Advocate General that if the company was registered under the Factories Act and the renewal of the license is pending, this defect would be ignored and the matter will be considered by the Commission at the time of interview. The second objection is that the experience certificate does not show that the petitioner has experience in 2 doing the work of inspection, repairing and overhauling of heavy and light vehicles. The experience certificate of Phooltas Autos Private Limited indicates that the petitioner has been working with TATA vehicles. This aspect of the mater shall be thoroughly examined at the time of the interview by testing the knowledge of the petitioner with respect to his work experience in both heavy and light vehicles. As far as the third objection is concerned i.e. the absence of the date of obtaining license in PARIPATRA II, this Court finds that infact the date is not mentioned. The petitioner may appear in the interview and at that stage, the Commission may take into consideration whether the petitioner has a valid license for driving heavy vehicles. If the petitioner does not have a license for driving heavy vehicles, obviously his candidature has to be rejected. This application is otherwise disposed of in terms of the order passed in CWJC No. 5859 of 2001 and its analogous cases disposed of on 23.04.2010 and CWJC No. 5993 of 2010 and its analogous cases disposed of on 26.04.2010. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)