IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.913 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.9.2009 State of Haryana and others. -----Appellants Vs. Constable Driver Jitender. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Ajay Gulati, AAG, Haryana for the appellants. ----- ORDER: 1. The appellants are aggrieved by order of learned Single Judge, allowing writ petition against Show Cause Notice proposing to terminate the services of the respondent on the ground that he did not have valid driving licence of heavy motor vehicle for three years prior to submission of his application. 2. Learned Single Judge followed earlier DB judgment of this Court dated 27.11.2008 in C.W.P. No.13941 of 2008 Constable Kanwal Singh No.214/IRB v. State of Haryana and others, holding that after an employee has been allowed to work for number of years, plea of lack of qualification on the date of appointment could not be raised. LPA No.913 of 2009 3. The respondent joined service as a Constable driver in Haryana Police, after being selected, on 14.3.2003. Show Cause Notice dated 28.11.2008 was issued to him, proposing to terminate his services, on the ground that he obtained heavy driving licence before attaining the age of 20 years. Licence was granted to him on 18.5.1999 while he attained the age of 20 years on 18.1.2000. Thus, the licence was not valid. 3. Contention raised in the writ petition was that he was duly selected after verification of all documents. Any irregularity in the grant of licence on account of age could not be made basis to terminate his services, after he had already served for more than five years. The respondent had not concealed anything nor misrepresented. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that if the respondent was not eligible for the licence granted to him, on the date of appointment, the appointment itself was void. 5. We are unable to accept this submission. The respondent was allowed to work for more than five years and there is no allegation that he had concealed anything or gave any incorrect information. Irregularity which is sought to be made the basis for terminating the services of the respondent, is not such as could not have been detected earlier. 2 LPA No.913 of 2009 6. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 7. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE September 23, 2009 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) ashwani JUDGE 3