Shukoor M S/o Majeedkutty v. State of Kerala & Kerala Public Service Commission

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE THE AG.CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/1ST POUSHA 1933 **W.A.No. 1972 of 2011** _(_ _**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.22932/2011 DATED 25-10-2011 )**_ ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** SHUKOOR M S/O.MAJEEDKUTTY, AGED 32 YEARS, CHIRAYIL PUTHEN VEEDU ANCHALUMOOD, PERINAD P.O. **KOLLAM** BY ADV.SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS** 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REP.BY ITS SECRETARY THULASI HILLS PATTOM, PALACE P.O THIRUVANTHAPURAM-695004 R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-12-2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag. CJ & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.** .............................................................................. **W.A.No. 1972 OF 2011** ......................................................................... **Dated this the 22[nd] December, 2011** ## **J U D G M E N T** ## **P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.** Whether a candidate seeking employment is supposed to satisfy the requisite qualifications prescribed in the Notification, as on the last date for receipt of the applications, or whether it will be sufficient if h/she acquires qualification before the date of interview , is the basic issue involved in this appeal. 2. Pursuant to Ext.P1 Notification dated 17.09.2008 for selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, the appellant herein submitted his application. The appellant concedes that the Notification clearly insisted that the applicant must hold a driving licence authorising him to drive Motor Cycle, Heavy goods vehicles and Heavy passenger motor vehicles so as to contest for the post. According to the appellant, **2** ## **W.A.No. 1972 OF 2011** he acquired the driving licence bearing No.2/2804/97 for driving light motor vehicles and motor cycles from 28.05.1997 to 27.05.2017 and for driving heavy vehicles for the period from 22.01.2003 to 21.01.2006, which expired in the year 2006, after which it was renewed only from 21.01.2009, and it is valid till 20.01.2012. Since the last date of receipt of the application was 17.09.2008, going by the facts and figures, the appellant was not having the heavy vehicle licence as on the said date, though he got it renewed later, of course, before the date of interview. But the candidature of the appellant was rejected by the PSC, which was subjected to challenge by filing the writ petition. 3. After referring to the undisputed facts and events and also the mandate of relevant provisions of law, particularly Sec.15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the law laid down by the Supreme Court as well as this Court in _**Jaya vs. Suchit**_ ( **2010 (2) KLT 709)** and _**Ashok vs. Public Service Commission**_ ( **2001(2) KLT 788 (SC),** the learned Single Judge observed that there was absolutely no merit in the writ **3** ## **W.A.No. 1972 OF 2011** petition in view of the undisputed fact that, on the last date of submission of the application, i.e. 17.09.2008, the writ petitioner was not having the requisite qualification and hence there was no ground to interfere with the decision taken by the PSC rejecting the application. The unsuccessful writ petitioner challenges the said decision in this appeal. 4. Heard Mr. M.R. Rajendran Nair, the learned Sr. Counsel for the appellant and Mr. P.C. Sasidharan, the learned Standing Counsel for the P.S.C at length. 5. The learned Sr. Counsel submits that the course pursued by the respondent P.S.C. and the finding and reasoning given by the learned Single Judge are not correct or proper. It is stated that this is not a case of total absence of qualification or driving licence, the appellant having obtained the same years back and that since he was abroad at the relevant time, the licence could not be renewed on time, when it expired in the year 2006. It was only on his coming back to India, that he could take necessary steps to have it renewed by filing an application in the **4** ## **W.A.No. 1972 OF 2011** year 2009 and got it renewed accordingly, at any rate before the interview. 6. The learned Sr. Counsel further submits that, by virtue of the mandate under the relevant provisions of law, it was very much open for the appellant to have the licence renewed even without undergoing any further test; as such a test is contemplated under sub-section (4) of Section 15, only if there was a gap of five years or more. In the instant case, immediately on filing the application for renewing the licence, it was renewed as a matter of right and as such, it could not be said that the appellant did not know driving, nor was he in any manner disqualified to contest for the post. 7. Sec. 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 deals with renewal of a driving licence, which reads as follows: _“15. Renewal of driving licences:-(1) Any licensing authority may, on application made to it, renew a driving licence issued under the provisions of this Act with effect from the date_ **5** ## **W.A.No. 1972 OF 2011** _of its expiry:_ _Provided that in any case where the application for the renewal of a licence is made more than thirty days after the date of its expiry, the driving licence shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal._ _Provided further that where the application is for the renewal of a licence to drive a transport vehicle or where in any other case the applicant has attained the age of forty years, the same shall be accompanied by a medial certificate in the same form and in th same manner as is referred to in subsection (3) of section 8, and the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 8 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to every such case as they apply in relation to a learner's licence. (2) An application for the renewal of a driving licence shall be made in such form and accompanied by such documents as may be prescribed by the Central Government._ _(3) Where an application for the renewal of a driving licence is made previous to, or not more than thirty days after the date of its expiry, the fee payable for such renewal shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central_ **6** ## **W.A.No. 1972 OF 2011** _Government in this behalf._ _(4) Where an application for the renewal of a driving licence is made more than thirty days after the date of its expiry, the fee payable for such renewal shall be such amount as may be prescribed by the Central Government:_ _Provided that the fee referred to in subsection (3) may be accepted by the licensing authority in respect of an application for the renewal of a driving licence made under this sub-section if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by good and sufficient cause from applying within the time specified in subsection(3)_ _Provided further that if the application is made more than five years after the driving licence has ceased to be effective, the licensing authority may refuse to renew the driving licence, unless the applicant undergoes and passes to its satisfaction the test of competence to drive referred to in sub-section (3) of section 9._ _(5) Where the application for renewal has been rejected, the fee paid shall be refunded to such extent and in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government._ **7** ## **W.A.No. 1972 OF 2011** _(6) Where the authority renewing the driving licence is not the authority which issued the driving licence it shall intimate the fact of renewal to the authority which issued the driving licence._ From the above, it is explicitly clear that, if the application to renew the driving licence is filed within 30 days of its expiry, the licence should be renewed, w.e.f. the date of expiry. On the other hand, if any such application is filed after 30 days, the renewal can only be w.e.f. date of such application and not otherwise. 8. After hearing both the sides, we find that the submission made by the learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner as to mere satisfaction of the skill or expertise of the persons in driving a vehicle is not the requirement with regard to the qualification as included in the notification. What is stipulated in the Notification, is a qualification supposed to be possessed by the contestants and only such candidates who are satisfying all the requirements by way of qualification or experience, if any, as specified or at **W.A.No. 1972 OF 2011** **8** least as on the last date of receipt of the application, as the case may be, shall alone be considered for the purpose of selection. Admittedly, in the instant case, the appellant got the licence renewed only on 21.01.2009 and as such, he was not having the prescribed licence as on the date last date for submission of the application. 9. The settled position of law is that, the rules of the game cannot be changed after commencement of the game, as made clear by the Apex Court in _**K.Manjusree vs. State of A.P**_ . [( **2008) 3 SCC 512** ]. The game has started by issuance of the notification inviting application. It is specifically stated in Ext.P1 notification that the candidate must hold a driving licence authorizing him to drive Motor Cycle, Heavy Goods Vehicles and Heavy Passenger Vehicles etc. Admittedly the appellant was not having the licence to drive Heavy vehicles as on the last date for submitting the application. Further, there may be several other similarly situated persons whose licence might have expired and were virtually disabled in submitting any valid application within **9** ## **W.A.No. 1972 OF 2011** the prescribed time, though might have got their licence renewed later, before the date of interview. This being the position, if any benefit is to be given accepting the proposition of the appellant, it will only be extending undue advantage to the appellant, which cannot be given. For this reason also, no interference is called for. We find that the finding and reasoning given by the learned Single Judge is perfectly valid and proper, being within the four walls of the law. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. **MANJULA CHELLUR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE.** **P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.** lk