CWP No.5261 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 16.9.2010 Deepak Antal ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana & others …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.AM Punchhi, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.RD Sharma, DAG, Haryana for respondents no.1 & 2 Respondent no.3 already ex-parte Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) Keeping in view the controversy involved and with the consent of the counsel, this petition is disposed of at motion stage. Selection of respondent no.3 as Tractor Driver with respondent no.2- School has been assailed in the present writ petition. The petitioner and respondent no.3 applied for the post of Tractor Driver in response to the advertisement published in the Hindustan Times on 10.4.2008. Qualifications as prescribed in the advertisement for the post in question are as under:- CWP No.5261 of 2009 2 “6.Tractor Driver-01 (Rs.4000-6000) Qualifications (a)Minimum Middle Pass; (b)Holder of a Tractor Licence with 02 years experience; Preference will be given to those who have undergone training at the Tractor Training Institute, Hissar.” The selection was made on the basis of the interview of the candidates conducted on 6.1.2009. No driving test was conducted. Respondent no.3 has been selected as Tractor Driver. The petitioner has placed on record his own Driving Licence issued on 7.5.2007. He is entitled to drive the Tractor and other allied vehicles. The challenge to the selection/appointment of respondent no.3 is two folds:- (i)That he is not possessed of the requisite driving licence of a Tractor; and (ii)That he was not having requisite experience of two years at the time of his selection/appointment. To substantiate the contentions raised in the writ petition, the petitioner has placed on record the driving licence of respondent no.3 (Annexure P-6). From the perusal of the driving licence, it appears that the driving licence (Annexure P-6) was issued to respondent no.3 on 9.5.2008. From the advertisement, it appears that applications were required to be submitted within 21 days from the date of publication of the advertisement. Advertisement was published on 10.4.2008 and thus the application was required to be submitted by 1.5.2008. In the advertisement, no period for possessing the requisite qualification is prescribed. Under such circumstances, the date for making application has to be considered as the date when the applicant is eligible in all respects. Thus respondent no.3 was required to hold driving licence on or before 1.5.2008. In the present case, the driving licence of respondent no.3 was issued on 9.5.2008. CWP No.5261 of 2009 3 None is present on behalf of respondent no.3, despite service. Vide order dated 21.7.2010, he was set-exparte. In the reply filed by official respondents, it is stated that the last date for making application was extended by a corrigendum published in the newspaper on 10/11th June, 2008. In that situation, respondent no.3 was possessed of the driving licence placed on record. Though respondent no.3 was having a driving licence, however, in the driving licence issued to respondent no.3, there is no mention of Tractor as a vehicle which the said respondent is entitled to drive. However, the licence contains a stipulation LMV(N.T.) only. The expression “Light Motor Vehicle” “Non-Transport Vehicle” has been clarified by the Registering Authority vide its communication dated 19.10.2009 (Annexure R-2). In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that respondent no.3 was not entitled to drive Tractor. As far as question of experience of respondent no.3 is concerned, advertisement clearly provides two years experience for a holder of tractor driving licence. Respondent no.3 was granted licence for the first time on 9.5.2008 and thus he could not have acquired two years driving experience what to say of driving a Tractor. In the additional affidavit, respondents have placed on record, an experience certificate (Annexure R-7) said to be issued by one Karan Khand Saree Complex. In this certificate, it is mentioned that respondent no.3 has served as Tractor Driver from 2000- 2005. This Certificate cannot be said to be of any consequence, in view of the fact that respondent no.3 acquired the Driving Licence only on 9.5.2008 i.e. after the date of publication of the advertisement. Thus, he was not possessed of the driving licence with requisite experience of two years as CWP No.5261 of 2009 4 prescribed in the advertisement. In this view of the matter, respondent no.3 was ineligible for selection/appointment as Tractor Driver. In view of the above, this petition is allowed and the selection/appointment of respondent no.3 as Tractor Driver is set aside. Consequently, the competent authority is directed to appoint the next meritorious person who is eligible in accordance with law as a Tractor Driver. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 16.9. 2010 MFK