IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 1975 of 2008(I)
1. SUDHESH T.S., AGED 38,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
4. THE R.T.O., O/O REGIONAL TRANSPORT
For Petitioner :SRI.T.N.MANOJ
For Respondent :SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :22/01/2008
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J
-------------------
W.P.(C).1975/2008
--------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioner responded to an application issued by the
PSC for the post of Reserve Drivers to be appointed by
the K.S.R.T.C. One qualification prescribed for the post
was Heavy duty driving license issued by the competent
authority. Petitioner’s Heavy duty driving license was
valid for the period from 2.1.1993 to 13.11.2003.
Petitioner obtained employment in Gulf countries during
the year 2003 and he came back only in the year 2005.
Heavy duty licence expired in the meanwhile. Petitioner
did not, therefore, hold Heavy duty licence from
13.11.2003 till 20.1.2005, when he made an application
for selection to the post of Reserve Driver, as mentioned
above. Apparently, petitioner applied for renewal of
Heavy duty licence and it was renewed on 26.12.2005 with
effect from 24.11.2005, which is evident from the
endorsement contained in Ext.P2. Petitioner was
thereafter treated as not qualified in terms of the
notification by the PSC. Said action has been challenged
in this writ petition.
W.P.(C).1975/2008
2
2. Notification in question is issued on 31.12.2004.
Petitioner applied on 20.1.2005. The last date of receipt
of application as mentioned in the notification is
31.1.2005. Admittedly, the period of validity of the
Heavy duty licence, which expired on 13.11.2003, is
thereafter renewed only with effect from 24.11.2005.
This means, that on the date of application submitted by
the petitioner and on the last date of receipt of
application as mentioned in the notification, namely
31.1.2005, petitioner did not hold a valid Heavy duty
driving licence.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Heavy duty driving licence was issued to the petitioner
and it was not cancelled at any point of time. It should
be deemed to be valid until it is cancelled. The licence
must be treated as valid for the purpose of third party
insurance and this principle has been upheld by the Full
Bench of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., v.
W.P.(C).1975/2008
3
Paulose (2004 (1) KLT 8 [FB]). Same principle
should apply in the case of public employment
requiring possession of valid driving licence as a
qualification for the post notified.
4. This aspect was squarely considered by this Court
in W.P.(C).23873/2005 and the decision was affirmed by
the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.1416/2006. Same
reasoning was followed by another learned Judge in W.P.
(C).33082/2007. The issue is therefore, covered against
the petitioner by the aforementioned judgments.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
question is whether the petitioner was disqualified on the
date of the application and expiry of the period of the
validity of the Heavy duty driving licence should be
ignored in the light of the fact that licence was
subsequently renewed. In my view, the question is
whether the petitioner is qualified in terms of the
notification and not whether he is disqualified as such.
W.P.(C).1975/2008
4
As I have mentioned above, the petitioner was not
qualified, because he did not possess valid Heavy duty
licence on the date of the notification and on the the
last date of receipt of the application. For all these
reasons, I do not find any error in the stand taken by the
PSC. Writ Petition is bereft of merit and the same is
dismissed.
V.GIRI,
Judge
mrcs