IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3104 of 2002 KEWAL KUMAR VERMA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4. 28.08.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The dogged perseverance in the issue for appointment on the post of Jeep Driver noticed by this Court on 6.12.2001 in CWJC No. 12152 of 2001 and analogous cases persists seven years later when the Respondents refused to become wiser by the observations and directions of this Court. The petitioner, an applicant under advertisement no. 9 of 1996 for the post of Jeep Driver in the office of the Civil Surgeon- cum-Chief Medical Officer, Madhepura was interviewed, found medically fit, passed the driving test when his name figured at serial 10 of a panel of 18 persons drawn up by the Motor Vehicles Inspector. The Civil Surgeon and the District Magistrate having second thoughts about the panel prepared by the Motor Vehicles Inspector required the applicant to appear afresh when the petitioner appeared for a fresh interview on 16.2.2002. He was, however, not allowed to participate in the driving test or the interview. The fact of his name figured in the earlier panel is not in dispute in the counter affidavit. This Court in CWJC No. 12152 of 2001 had directed that those in the panel of the Motor Vehicles Inspector and the fresh panel prepared subsequently by the District Magistrate were both required to be considered. Learned counsel for the State urged that under the - 2 - advertisement experience of driving a jeep for three years was an essential qualification. The petitioner did not possess this experience. He, however, found it difficult to deal with the empanelment of the petitioner in the earlier panel and the direction of this Court in CWJC No. 12152 of 2001 that he was also required to be considered. The quibbling in which the State seeks to indulge hardly behoves it. What the respondents essentially wanted was a person, class VII passed and possessed a valid light motor vehicle/heavy motor vehicle licence and had experience of driving for three years. Satisfied with the validity of his licence, the Respondents interviewed him and empanelled him. To this Court the essential qualification was the holding of a valid driving licence for L.M.V. or H.M.V. No special skills are required for driving a jeep, which is otherwise a light motor vehicle. No special expertise is required or acquired by driving a jeep for three years. The matter has remained pending before this Court since 2002. This Court had directed the interview of 19 candidates of which the petitioner was also one. The vacancies as advertised were 12 including reserve vacancies. This Court does not have the benefit of any submissions today with regard to the number of vacancies available from that advertised. However, a rejoinder has been filed to the counter affidavit by the petitioner which states at paragraph 18 that 4 vacancies exist. Apart from one further vacancy on account of a driver being deceased. The Respondents are, therefore, directed to consider the - 3 - case of the petitioner on basis of his empanelment and earlier directions of this Court when appointment has wrongly been denied to him. Let such consideration be done and appropriate orders passed within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. In the event that no further vacancy is available under the aforesaid advertisement, the Respondents shall be required to consider the petitioner against any other available sanctioned vacant post of Driver within the aforesaid period. The writ application stands allowed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)