IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2008 / 16TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 3565 of 2008(Y) --------------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ NARAYANA PISHARODY K.R., AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. RAMA PISHARODY, RESIDING AT PADMAVILASOM, KAKKOOR P.O., KOOTHATTUKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY SMT.D.HEERA SMT.R.R.REJITHA SRI.P.V.ABDUL SAMAD RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, TRIVANDRUM, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRIVANDRUM. ADDL.R3. THE ASSISTANT LICENSING AUTHORITY, MUVATTUPUZHA. (ADDL. R3 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT.10.3.2008). R1 BY SHRI ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC, PSC. BY ADV. SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C. FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 3565 OF 2008 Y -------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th August, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner applied for the post of Reserve Driver pursuant to Ext.P1 Notification published by the KSRTC. The last date for filing application was 31.1.2005. As per Ext.P1, to be eligible for appointment, the candidates must, apart from other qualifications, be authorised to drive heavy duty vehicles. The candidates should also have completed more than seven years after obtaining the driving licence, out of which, more than three years should be with authorisation to drive heavy duty vehicles. The licence must be valid as on the date of the application. Petitioner has produced Ext.P2 which is the copy of the relevant page of the driving licence. Petitioner was found eligible and was invited to appear for the driving test and he was qualified in the same and he was placed in the ranklist. He received a communication vide Ext.P3 directing him to report on 23.7.2007 with the driving licence particulars issued by the Regional WPC. 3565/08 Y 2 Transport Officer. Petitioner obtained the driving licence particulars as per Ext.P4 and it was produced before the first respondent, Public Service Commission who on verification informed him that he did not have the licence for the period from 2001 to 2006. Petitioner filed Ext.P5 representation before the first respondent. He received Ext.P6 show cause notice on the ground that he was ineligible and he did not have the licence. Petitioner submitted Ext.P7 reply. Ext.P8 is the order passed which is challenged in this Writ Petition. Petitioner seeks a further direction to consider him for appointment as Reserve Driver. A short Counter Affidavit is filed on behalf of the first respondent wherein, it is, inter alia, stated as follows: "It is most respectfully submitted that the notification inviting applications for the post of Reserve Driver in KSRTC was published in the Gazette dated 31.12.2004. The petitioner Sri. Narayana Pisharady was one of the applicants for the post. He was admitted for the OMR test assigning Register No.56348 and was WPC. 3565/08 Y 3 provisionally included in the Ranked List published on 14.6.2007. But, at the time of detailed scrutiny of application after the publication of Ranked List, it was noticed that the petitioner did not possess valid driving licence to drive transport vehicles on the last date of application as stipulated in the notification. As per the documents produced by the candidate, it is evident that the licence to drive transport vehicles was only from 7-12-98 to 6-12-2001. The next renewal was shown for a period of 3 years from 11-4-2006 to 10-4-2009 and therefore it is clear that the petitioner has not renewed the licence from 7-12-2001 to 10-4-2006. Since the petitioner did not possess valid driving licence on the date of application (27-1-2005) and on the last date for receipt of application (31-1-2005) a show cause memo was issued to him on 19-12- 2007. But, as the reply received from him was not satisfactory, his name was removed from the Ranked List published on 25-10-2007." 2. Petitioner has filed a Reply Affidavit. Therein, the petitioner has, inter alia, set up the following case: WPC. 3565/08 Y 4 " It is evident from the above that where as an application for renewal is made within 30 days of expiry of the validity of the licence, the renewal would take effect from the date of its expiry' whereas where an application for renewal is made after 30 days, renewal would take effect only from the date of such renewal. In the instant case, Ext.P2 licence would show that the application was again made on 22.4.2006 for renewal of the licence and the same for driving a non-transport vehicle is renewed w.e.f. 22.4.06, that is, because the date of expiry of the licence to drive a non-transport vehicle was 6.12.2001. However, the licence to drive a transport vehicle was renewed with effect from 10.4.06, that is from the date of expiry and that is because the application was within 30 days of its expiry. So long as Ext.P2 is a licence given to the petitioner by a competent Licensing Authority, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not holding a valid driving licence as on the last date of application." 3. A Statement also is filed by the additional third respondent, namely the Assistant Licensing Authority, WPC. 3565/08 Y 5 Muvattupuzha. Therein, it is stated that the validity of the licence of the petitioner to drive transport vehicles had expired on 6.12.2001 and he applied for further renewal of his licence for driving transport vehicles only on 22.4.2006, and that it is clear from the records that the petitioner did not hold a valid licence to drive transport vehicles for the period from 7.12.2001 to 21.4.2006. 4. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader besides the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent Commission. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that it is not correct to contend that the petitioner did not have a valid transport vehicle licence as on the last day for receipt of applications, namely 31.1.2005. Counsel relies on Ext.P2. Counsel also produced before me the original of the licence book and contended that a perusal of the entries made therein would make it clear that the petitioner indeed had a licence to drive transport vehicles till 10.4.2006. It is contended that this WPC. 3565/08 Y 6 fact is brought out by the fact that the licence is renewed with effect from the date of expiry, namely 10.4.2006 in the case of transport vehicle licence, and that it is because of the fact that the licence was valid till 10.4.2006. In this context, counsel for petitioner relies on Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is the petitioner's case that if a licence expires and renewal is applied for within thirty days, it will be granted with effect from the date of expiry and that if the application is not made within thirty days, renewal will be with effect from the date of the application. Therefore, it is contended that it must be taken that since the transport vehicle licence was renewed with effect from 10.4.2006, the licence was valid upto 10.4.2006 and this is all the more so, it is contended, having regard to the entry relating to the licence to drive a non-transport vehicle. It is pointed out that the renewal is with effect from 22.4.2006. 5. Learned standing counsel for the respondent Commission relied on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C).No.33082/07. Therein, the learned Judge WPC. 3565/08 Y 7 referring to other decisions also, repelled the contention that even if there is no valid licence as on the last date for filing applications, it is sufficient if an application for renewal is made within thirty days, for the reason that the renewal will have effect from the date on which the licence expired. In the context of deciding the title of an applicant, who applies pursuant to a notification by the Public Service Commission, the title must be decided with regard to the possession of the requisite qualification which the candidate has on the last day fixed for filing the application, and not with reference to the deeming provision under the Motor Vehicles Act, which may be valid in another jurisdiction. 6. Learned Government Pleader sought and got entries from the Register of Driving Licence itself and he pointed out that the petitioner had licence to drive a transport vehicle which was renewed upto 6.12.2001. He had valid licence to drive a non-transport vehicle upto 10.4.2006, he points out. He, no doubt, submits that when it is seen renewed on 22.10.2006, that WPC. 3565/08 Y 8 the licence should have been renewed with effect from 10.4.2006 for LTV. Both on a perusal of the original licence as also the photo copy of the Register of driving licence which was also made available to the learned counsel for the petitioner for perusal, it is clear that the licence which the petitioner had to drive transport vehicle expired on 6.12.2001. This means that the petitioner did not have a valid licence to drive a transport vehicle as on the last date fixed for filing application, namely 31.1.2005. In this view of the matter, I am constrained to reject the claim of the petitioner against Ext.P8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy// PS to Judge