Delhi High Court

Yogendra Kumar Yadav vs Union Of India And Ors on 15 February, 2023

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2023/DHC/001059

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 9th January , 2023
Pronounced on:15th Feburary,2023

+ W.P.(C) 8983/2020 & CM APPL.28998/2020

YOGENDRA KUMAR YADAV
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar,
CGSC with Mr. Srish Kumar
Mishra, Mr.Sagar Mehlawat and
Mr. Alexander Mathai, Advocates
for UOI. SI Prahlad Devenda and
SI Amit Kumar, CISF

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J

1. A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Certiorari for quashing of Order dated 15.10.2020
whereby selection of the petitioner for the post of Constable/DCPO has
been cancelled and for issuance of Writ of Mandamus for directing the

W.P.(C) 8983/2020 Page 1 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SAHIL SHARMA
Signing Date:15.02.2023
11:17:13
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2023/DHC/001059

respondents to treat the Driving License of the petitioner as valid and
issue Appointment Letter and permit him to join the training along with
other candidates with all consequential benefits.
2. The facts in brief are that an advertisement in the month of
February, 2018 for filling up temporary post of Constable/ Driver cum
Pump Operator (DCPO) in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) was
issued. The petitioner being eligible as per the criteria prescribed in the
advertisement, applied for the post in the category of OBC. Recruitment
process consisted of Height Bar Test (HBT), Physical Endurance Test
(PET), Physical Standard Test (PST), Documentation, Trade Test, Written
Test and the final was the medical examination. After examining
eligibility of the petitioner by taking note of the eligibility conditions
prescribed in the Advertisement, petitioner was issued Admit Card and
was called for Height Bar Test, Physical Endurance Test on 17.09.2018
which was cleared by the petitioner. Thereafter, he was issued an Admit
Card for the written examination which was held on 17.02.2019. After
successfully cleared all the examinations, he was declared provisionally
selected subject to the medical examination. The list of provisionally
selected candidates was published on 16.04.2019 and the name of the
petitioner was reflected at Sr. No.328. His medical examination was also
conducted and was found fit. He was verbally informed that he would
have to report to CISF, Bhilai, Chattisgarh. The petitioner accordingly
visited Bhilai, where he was informed that the recruitment process is still
underway and the final list shall be declared pursuant to which he would
be called for joining. The revised result of provisionally selected
candidates was published, wherein the names of all the candidates who

W.P.(C) 8983/2020 Page 2 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SAHIL SHARMA
Signing Date:15.02.2023
11:17:13
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2023/DHC/001059

were found medically fit on review were supposed to appear, but to the
shock and surprise of the petitioner, his name was not included in the list.
3. The petitioner filed W.P. (C) No.9723/2019 titled as Vikram Singh
& Ors. Vs. Union of India which was allowed by this Court vide judgment
dated 24.10.2019 with the following directions :
"15. Even otherwise with the Respondents having
advertised 447 vacancies, there appears to be no logical
reason for not preparing a reserve list. The contention of
learned counsel for the Respondents, on the basis of
averment in the counter affidavit, that candidates from
the reserved list may miss out on the training already
being imparted to the 372 selected candidates overlooks
the fact that there have been numerous instances where
there is a large batch of candidates qualifying in a
selection, all of them may not be able to be sent for
training at the same time but are further split into groups
and sent for training in batches. In any event of the
present case, the fault entirely lies with the Respondents
for not adhering to the settled legal position explained in
the above decisions of the Court interpreting OM dated
13th June, 2000 and underscoring the need to prepare the
reserve list of candidates.
16. Consequently, the Court directs that the Respondents
will now prepare a reserve list of candidates pursuant to
the result already declared on 29th August, 2019 taking
into account the reservations provided in terms of the

W.P.(C) 8983/2020 Page 3 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SAHIL SHARMA
Signing Date:15.02.2023
11:17:13
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2023/DHC/001059

advertisement. Those figuring in the reserve list,
including the Petitioners if they do figure in such
reserved list, will be sent offers of appointment. This
exercise be completed not later than 8 weeks from today.
The petition is allowed to the above terms. The pending
application is also disposed of. No order as to costs.
17. A copy of this order be given dasti under the
signatures of the Court Master."
4. Despite the above judgment and the directions contained therein,
the respondent did not comply with the same, which led the petitioners to
file a Contempt Petition No.24/2020 against respondents in W.P. (C)
9723/2019 for wilful disobedience of the Judgment dated 24.10.2019.
The Union of India had also filed a SLP before the Supreme Court bearing
SLP (C) Diary No.4086/2020 but the same was dismissed vide order dated
02.03.2020. Thus, the judgment of this Court dated 24.10.2019 attained
finality.
5. Thereafter, the respondents issued a list of 72 provisionally selected
candidates from the reserved list, as directed by this Court in its Order
dated 06.10.2020. The petitioner figured at Sr. No.29 with the remark "fit
in medical examination". Despite figuring in the list of selected
candidates, no letter/ offer of appointment was issued to him. Instead he
received a letter dated 10.10.2020 wherein it was directed that he should
submit his HMV or Heavy Motor Vehicle Driving License in order to be
eligible for selection. The petitioner accordingly forwarded his Driving
License along with relevant application via e-mail dated 12.10.2020. The
respondents issued the letter dated 15.10.2020 informing that the

W.P.(C) 8983/2020 Page 4 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SAHIL SHARMA
Signing Date:15.02.2023
11:17:13
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2023/DHC/001059

candidature of the petitioner has been cancelled since the Driving License
submitted by him at the initial stage of selection validated his driving for
"Trans driving license" w.e.f. 08.11.2019 for which the petitioner had
submitted valid learners license for "Trans" vehicles which was issued for
the period 23.05.2019 till 22.11.2019. Since the closing date for
submitting applications as per advertisement was 19.03.2018, the license
forwarded by the petitioner was invalid and could not be considered for
his application and, therefore, the selection of the petitioner stood
cancelled.
6. It is asserted that the relevant criteria as regards the Driving License
mentioned in the advertisement for the post of Constable/ DCPO was as
follows :
"c) Driving License:
The candidate should have a valid driving license for
(i) Heavy Motor Vehicle or Transport Vehicle;
(ii) Light Motor Vehicle;
(iii) Motor cycle with gear."
7. It is claimed that "Tans" or "Transport Vehicle" is equivalent to
HMV or Heavy Motor Vehicle and the advertisement clearly stipulated
that the candidate should hold a Driving License for a "Heavy Motor
Vehicle or Transport Vehicle". The petitioner had a valid License to drive
Transport Vehicles w.e.f 08.11.2019. His earlier copy of Driving License
was issued on 09.02.2012, the copy of which was forwarded to the
respondent vide e-mail dated 12.10.2020. It had the endorsement that it
was valid for the petitioner to drive „TR: LMV-GV‟ or (Transport: Light
Motor Vehicle-Goods Vehicle) which was valid upto 29.10.2016.

W.P.(C) 8983/2020 Page 5 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SAHIL SHARMA
Signing Date:15.02.2023
11:17:13
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2023/DHC/001059

Thereafter, the license was duly renewed till 29.10.2019. The petitioner
was thus, holding a valid driving licence and was authorized to drive
„Trans‟ vehicles up to 29.10.2019. It was only to ensure that he did not
face any obstacle that he applied for Licence for Heavy Motor Vehicle
which was authorized w.e.f 08.11.2019. The petitioner has claimed that he
was holding a valid license for Transport vehicles as on 29.10.2019 and he
was an eligible candidate on the date of closing of the application as per
the advertisement, despite which his selection was cancelled on
19.03.2018.
8. The petitioner has asserted that due to inadvertent error he did not
attach copies of previous driving licenses. For such minor technical and
inadvertent error, his appointment cannot be terminated when he has
successfully completed all the other steps of selection process. The
petitioner had placed reliance on East Coast Railway vs. Mahadev Appa
Rao & Ors. (2010) 7 SCC 678; Delhi Subordinate Services Selection
Board & Anr. Vs. Neeraj Kumar & Anr. 2012 SCC OnLine Del 1160;
Union of India & Ors. Vs. Pradeep Tomar 2015 SCC OnLIne Del 8699;
and Union of India & Ors. Vs. Sumit Kumar 2017 SCC OnLine Del 10138
to argue that in the matters of fundamental rights, no impediment which is
more in the nature of technicality, should be allowed to play a substantive
role resulting in denial of such rights.
9. It is claimed that the impugned Order dated 15.10.2020 of the
respondents is arbitrary and untenable in law. The petitioner had fulfilled
the criteria as mentioned in the advertisement for the post of Constable/
DCPO. Therefore, directions may be issued quashing the impugned order
dated 15.10.2020 and direct the respondent to treat the Driving License of

W.P.(C) 8983/2020 Page 6 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SAHIL SHARMA
Signing Date:15.02.2023
11:17:13
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2023/DHC/001059

the petitioner as valid and to offer the relevant post to the petitioner as part
of the provisional list of 72 candidates issued in the year 2019 and to
permit him to join the training tentatively scheduled to start from
21.12.2020.
10. The petitioner in his written submissions, has reaffirmed his
assertions as contained in the petition.
11. The respondent in its oral and written submissions has admitted
that pursuant to the advertisement dated February, 2018 the petitioner had
appeared and was declared qualified for PET/PST/Documentation/ Trade
Test held on 17.09.2018 and 18.09.2018. He was declared qualified in the
written examination and he was also found medically fit in his medical
examination conducted on 17.05.2019. However, upon scrutiny of
documents, the petitioner was found to be having a Driving License for
Non-Transport: Light Motor Vehicle, Motor Cycle with Gear issued on
09.02.2012 and Driving License for Transport: LMV-GV on 13.10.2013.
Since there was no entry with respect to Heavy Motor Vehicle or Heavy
Transport Vehicle, the petitioner was directed to produce the same within
ten days vide Group Commandant, Group HQs Letter No.4992 dated
17.05.2019. The petitioner submitted the Learner‟s License for TRANS
(i.e. Transport) valid from 23.05.2019 to 22.11.2019 issued by Sub
Officer, Rajasthan.
12. It is further asserted that WP No.7335/2019 was filed before the
Allahabad High Court and it was confirmed that the answer to one
question in the Answer Key of written examination was incorrect. The
result was revised and fresh list of 447 candidates was drawn. In this
revised result, the ten candidates including the petitioner who had secured

W.P.(C) 8983/2020 Page 7 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SAHIL SHARMA
Signing Date:15.02.2023
11:17:13
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2023/DHC/001059

a place of merit in the previous list, were eliminated and did not find
mention in the revised Merit List. Since, the petitioner was not selected,
the issue in regard to production of HMV or Transport Vehicle license has
become otiose.
13. In compliance of the Order dated 24.10.2019 of this Court in WP
No.9723/2019, a Reserve list of 72 candidates for recruitment to the post
of Constable/ Driver and DCPO-2017 was drawn from the combined
reserve list which was issued on 03.10.2020. The petitioner was one of
these 72 candidates whose name featured at Sr. No.29 of the reserve list.
He was directed to produce a valid HMV/ Transport Vehicle license along
with a copy of the license as specified in the Notification for recruitment
in CISF to NZ-I Hqrs by 14.10.2020. The petitioner sent his application
along with the copy of the Transport HMV license on 12.10.2020. Upon
scrutiny, it was found that HMV/TR License was issued on 08.11.2019
which was beyond the closing date of 19.03.2018. Despite opportunity
having been afforded to petitioner, he was unable to produce a valid
HMV/TR license and his candidature was rejected about which he was
intimated vide letter dated 15.10.2020.
14. It is submitted that candidate should have possessed driving license
for all the three categories as mentioned in paragraph 4(c) on or before the
closing date of application i.e. 19.03.2018. The category of Heavy Motor
Vehicle or Transport Vehicle is a category completely different from Light
Motor Vehicle. The petitioner was not having a license for Heavy Motor
Vehicle or equivalent Transport Vehicle on 19.03.2018 and was therefore,
not qualified.
15. It is further argued that if the petitioner was indeed fulfilling all

W.P.(C) 8983/2020 Page 8 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SAHIL SHARMA
Signing Date:15.02.2023
11:17:13
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2023/DHC/001059

the criteria of the Notification on the date of closing of application i.e.
19.03.2018, there was no need for him to file subsequent Learner‟s
License having a category of TRANS w.e.f. 23.05.2019 in furtherance of
the Group HQs Letter No.4992 dated 17.05.2019. It is asserted that the
petitioner had furnished false information and submitted a false
experience certificate during the recruitment process and did not fulfil the
eligibility criteria for the post in CISF and his candidature has been
cancelled in accordance to the criteria laid down in the Notification.
16. Submissions heard.
17. The short controversy in the present case is whether the petitioner
had the requisite Driving License for the LMV/ Transport Vehicle or
Heavy Motor Vehicle on the closing date of 19.03.2018 as per the
advertisement. It would be relevant to quote the relevant eligibility
criteria as stated in the Advertisement which is as under :
"4.(1)ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
......

The candidate should have a valid driving license for

(i) Heavy Motor Vehicle or Transport Vehicle;

                                      (ii)     Light Motor Vehicle;
                                      (iii)    Motor cycle with gear."

18. There is no dispute or challenge in regard to the petitioner having a valid driving license for LMV and Motor Cycle with Gear. The entire controversy hinges on whether he had a valid driving license for "Heavy Motor Vehicle or Transport Vehicle" on the last date of submission of

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAHIL SHARMA Signing Date:15.02.2023 11:17:13 NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2023/DHC/001059

application i.e. 19.03.2018.

19. There is no denial or challenge that the driving license of the petitioner was issued on 09.02.2012 which was valid for Light Motor Vehicle/ Motor cycle with Gear. Thereafter, the endorsement for Transport: LMV-GV was made on 20.10.2013 which was valid till 29.10.2016. Thereafter, the Driving License was renewed till 29.10.2019 vide endorsement made in 2016. The advertisement provided for "Heavy Motor Vehicle or Transport Vehicle". The petitioner was thus, having the valid Driving Licence for Transport Vehicle which met the Criteria as specified in the Advertisement.

20. The controversy now raised by the respondents is that though the petitioner was having a Transport Licence but it did not include Heavy Motor Vehicle and thus, the petitioner was not qualified for the post. Before considering whether the Petitioner fulfilled the requisite criteria it would be worth the while to refer to the definitions under Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.

21. Section 2(47) of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 defines the Transport Vehicle as under :

""transport vehicle" means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle."

22. The Transport Vehicle thus includes a public service vehicle and a private service vehicle aside from a goods carriage or an education institution bus.

23. Section 2(35) public service vehicle:

""public service vehicle" means any motor vehicle

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAHIL SHARMA Signing Date:15.02.2023 11:17:13 NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2023/DHC/001059

used or adopted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward, and includes a maxicab , a motorcab, contract carriage, and stage carriage."

24. Section 2(33) private service vehicle:

""Private service vehicle" means a motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six persons excluding the driver and ordinarily used by or on behalf of the owner of such vehicle for the purpose of carrying persons for, or in connection with, his trade or business otherwise than for hire or reward but does not include a motor vehicle used for public purposes."

25. Section 2(14) goods carriage:

""goods carriage" means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods."

26. Section 2(11) educational institution bus:

""educational institution bus" means an omnibus, which is owned by a college, school or other educational institution and used solely for the purpose of transporting students or staff of the educational institution in connection with any of its activities".

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAHIL SHARMA Signing Date:15.02.2023 11:17:13 NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2023/DHC/001059

27. From the aforesaid definition of transport vehicle, it is evident that it is valid for goods carriage, and for any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for carriage of goods for hire or reward or any private vehicle used by the owner for its own business/ trade purpose. The Transport vehicle essentially is for carriage of passengers or goods and has an element of commerce / business.

28. The scheme of Motor Vehicle Act in addition to classifying the driving licenses as for Non-Transport or Transport Vehicle, also categorizes the vehicles as Light Goods Vehicle and Light Passenger Vehicle as defined under Section 2(21) and 2(22); Medium Goods Vehicle and Medium Passenger Vehicle as defined under Section 2(23) and 2(24); and Heavy Goods Vehicle and Heavy Passenger Vehicle as defined under Section 2(16) and 2(17) of the Motor Vehicle Act. Essentially, the Transport vehicles having an unladen weight of 12000 Kilograms or above are classified as Heavy Motor Vehicle, while the transport vehicles having an unladen weight not exceeding 7500/- Kilograms are classified as Light Motor Vehicle and the vehicles in between 7500 Kilograms and 12000 Kilograms unladen weight may be considered as Medium Motor Vehicles (goods or passenger). The classification of Light, Medium and Heavy Transport Vehicle is, therefore, done on the basis of the unladen weight of the vehicles.

29. From the definitions as mentioned above, it is evident that Heavy Transport Vehicle, Medium Transport Vehicle and Light Transport Vehicle, all come within the umbrella of Transport Vehicle.

30. The petitioner‟s Driving License was valid for Transport license for LMV/ Goods Vehicle. The advertisement provided for "Heavy Motor

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAHIL SHARMA Signing Date:15.02.2023 11:17:13 NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2023/DHC/001059

Vehicle or Transport Vehicle" i.e. the candidate should be holding either a Heavy Motor or a Transport Vehicle license. Undeniably, the category of Heavy Motor Vehicle as Transport Vehicle is different as has also been submitted by the respondent, but the advertisement only specified for a driving license for Transport Vehicle or heavy motor vehicle. It nowhere stated that the candidate was required to have a driving license for HTV as well as for Transport Vehicle.

31. Once the advertisement clearly stipulated that the petitioner must have a valid Transport License or Heavy Motor Vehicle, it cannot be now contended by the respondents that the transport license should have also been valid for Heavy Motor Vehicle. The conjunction "or" between the two categories unambiguously leads to only one interpretation that the license should have been valid for Transport or HTV in the alternative. It cannot now be contended that the Transport Vehicle should have also been valid for Heavy Transport Vehicle.

32. The approach adopted by the respondents is hyper-technical, pedantic and also contrary to its own advertisement. The petitioner pursuant to the letter dated 17.05.2019 of the respondents, may have applied to get the driving license for HTV but that was not because he lacked requisite qualification as provided in the impugned advertisement but only pursuant to subsequent communication dated 17.05.2019 as he did not want any obstacle to his appointment.

33. The contention of the respondents that petitioner was disqualified as he was not holding a valid Driving License for HTV on the last date of submission of the application i.e. 19.03.2018, is arbitrary, without any basis and contrary to its Advertisement. The petitioner was holding a valid

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAHIL SHARMA Signing Date:15.02.2023 11:17:13 NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2023/DHC/001059

Driving License for Transport Vehicles, Light Motor Vehicle and Motor Cycle with gear and was thus, qualified for selection to the advertised post of Constable/DCPO.

34. Consequently, we direct the respondents to reconsider the candidature of the petitioner since he had the requisite valid Driving License on the date of the advertisement subject to the condition of his being selected in the Reserve List of 72 candidates, as per the result declared on 29.08.2019, with all consequential benefits. This exercise be completed not later than eight weeks from today.

35. The petition is allowed in the above terms.

36. The pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA) JUDGE

(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE

FEBURARY 15, 2023 va

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAHIL SHARMA Signing Date:15.02.2023 11:17:13