CWP NO. 21720 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 21720 of 2008 Date of Decision: April 29, 2009 Constable Driver Jitender, No.2/839 ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. R.K.Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Senior DAG, Haryana. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.9.2008 (Annexure P-3) whereby notice has been issued to him to show cause why his services be not terminated on the ground that he did not have driving licence for heavy motor vehicles for a minimum period of 3 years prior to the last date of submitting the application form. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the finding of the inquiry officer but relies upon a judgment of this Court in CWP No. CWP NO. 21720 of 2008 2 13941 of 2008 titled Constable Kanwal Singh, No. 214/IRB V. State of Haryana and others wherein by judgment and order dated 27.11.2008 a Division Bench held as follows:- “It is not in dispute, as we have pointed out earlier that none of the petitioners had the requisite number of 3 years of experience as licence holders of heavy vehicles. They held three years experience only as holders of light motor vehicles and only by continuance in service after the appointment of the petitioners, all the petitioners obtained the requisite three years experience as holders of heavy motor vehicles. If we must be concerned about the continuance of employment only on the basis of initial eligibility, we could have had no option but to keep a hands off approach. But we must remember that the petitioners were being employed not on any highly technical or skilled work, although drivers require basic skills and it is the issuance of driving licences that guaranteed their respective eligibility. The number of years of experience was also relevant for after all, an employer was entitled to insist and expect that with experience they would have gained better control and applied norms of safety and exhibited higher efficiency while driving. It is now not the case that owing to any lack of experience, the respondents had suffered any loss. The experience that they have gained through the years since their employment in 2002 till the CWP NO. 21720 of 2008 3 time when the show cause notices were issued, in 2008, they have sufficiently filled up the initial lacuna. It has been held by the Supreme Court of India in Bhagwati Prasad and others Vs. Delhi State Mineral Development 1990 1 S.C.C 361 while adverting to the value of experience, that education would not always give experience and if the experience has been obtained during the service, that itself would be sufficient ground for retention of service and not to terminate on the ground of lack of the requisite educational qualification. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners rely on the judgment of the Supreme Court in AIR 1978 SC 1536 1979 1 SCC 168 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court was addressing the issue of the appointment of Statistical Officer who did not fulfill the requisite qualification at the time of appointment but who had obtained necessary experience subsequently during the service and that was good enough justification for retention of service without termination. We find ourselves bound by the decision of the Supreme Court and we are in full agreement with raison- d'tre (sic) found in the above judgment. We quash the show cause notices in the above circumstances and uphold the contentions of the petitioners. Consequently, the respondents shall not give effect to any proposal for termination of the services of the petitioners. The summary rejection of a driver's plea in CWP NO. 21720 of 2008 4 CWP No. 19039 of 2003 (R-3) that he did not have the requisite experience offers no value of precedent to us, since we are now concerned about the status of the drivers who have been allowed to be continued in service for over six years without any action on the part of the respondents and the complaint of lack of experience could no longer avail to the respondents to justify this proposed action to terminate their services. Writ petitions are allowed on the above terms.” Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to deny that this judgment covers the present case on facts and law. Consequently this writ petition is allowed in the same terms. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE April 29, 2009 sunita