Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/6 vs The Gauhati High Court And 3 Ors on 19 June, 2025
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010022892018
2025:GAU-AS:8396
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/763/2018
MAHESH HAZARIKA
S/O NARAYAN HAZARIKA
VILL AND P.O. NAHIRA
P.S. PALASHBARI
DSIT. KAMRUP, ASSAM
PIN - 781132.
VERSUS
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AND 3 ORS.
REP. BY REGISTRAAR GENERAL OF GAUHATI HIGH COURT, MAHATMA
GANDHI ROAD, GUWAHATI-1.
2:THE REGISTRAR (ADMIN)-CUM-IC
CENTRALISED RECRUITMENT
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD
GUWAHATI-1.
3:RANDHIR KUMAR @ RANDHIR SINGH (PAL)
S/O RAMSWARUP PAL
R/O BAHADURPUR
P.S. CHANDI
DIST. NALANDA
STATE- BIHAR
C/O THE REGISTRAR GAUHATI HIGH COURT
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD
GUWAHATI -1.
Page No.# 2/6
4:COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-0
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. N. Borah, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Ms. S. Sarma, Standing Counsel
Mr. A. Dhar, Advocate
Ms. M.D. Borah, Standing Counsel
Date of Hearing : 19.06.2025
Date of Judgment : 19.06.2025
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. N. Borah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner. Ms. S. Sarma, the learned Standing Counsel for
the Gauhati High Court appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1
and 2; Mr. A. Dhar, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the
respondent No. 3; Ms. M.D. Borah, the learned Standing Counsel
appears on behalf of the respondent No. 4.
2. The petitioner herein has assailed the appointment of the
respondent No. 3 in the post of Driver pursuant to a selection process
initiated by the Gauhati High Court. The challenge made to the
Page No.# 3/6
appointment of the respondent No. 3 is on the ground that the licence
of the respondent No. 3 was not a valid license in terms with Section
4(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which stipulates that no person
under the age of 20 (twenty) years shall drive a transport vehicle in
any public place. It was mentioned that the private respondent would
be 20 (twenty) years only on 15.01.2014 and the last date for
submission of the application was on 23.12.2013, on which date, the
private respondent was not eligible to be entitled to drive a transport
vehicle.
3. Taking into account the case of the petitioner, this Court finds it
relevant to take note of the advertisement which was issued on
09.12.2013 for filling up of 5 (five) post of Barkandaz (Driver) in the
Principal Seat of the Gauhati High Court. The eligibility condition was
that the candidate should have a minimum educational qualification of
Class VIII Standard and should possess a valid Professional Driving
Licence.
4. It is relevant to take note of from the affidavit-in-opposition filed
by the respondent No. 4, that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or the
Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 do not conceive of a Professional
Driving Licence. What is conceived of is a transport licence and a non-
transport licence. Therefore, the very term in the advertisement of
having a Professional Driving Licence was ambiguous and as such,
Page No.# 4/6
none of the candidates had a Professional Driving License.
5. This Court finds it pertinent to take note of that, 16 (sixteen)
candidates participated in the selection process. The private
respondent was at Serial No. 5 in the select list, whereas the
petitioner was at Serial No. 6. Pursuant thereto, on 05.02.2015, the
select list was published wherein the petitioner's name was shown in
the waiting list at Serial No. 1 whereas the private respondent was
amongst the selected candidates.
6. It is relevant to take note of that the petitioner thereupon filed a
writ petition challenging the selection of the private respondent on
04.12.2017, but without it being registered, the said petition was
withdrawn and subsequently the present writ petition was filed on
06.02.2018.
7. The question arises, as to whether, any interference is called for
to the selection of the private respondent and his appointment when
such a challenge is made after 3 (three) years from the date of
selection.
8. It has been mentioned in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the
private respondent that he was appointed on 19.03.2015 after
carrying out necessary verification of his Driving Licence and obtaining
the report from the Office of the DTO, Dibrugarh on 26.02.2015.
Page No.# 5/6
9. It surprises this Court that the petitioner herein has not assailed
the appointment order.
10. The record further reveals from the affidavit-in-opposition filed
by the respondent No. 4, as already stated herein above that there is
no concept of a Professional Driving Licence. The respondent No.1
had also filed an affidavit-in-opposition wherein it was stated that the
word Professional Licence has been used in the advertisement on the
ground that in various Judicial pronouncements, the term Professional
Driving Licence has been mentioned.
11. In the backdrop of the above, this Court has heard the learned
counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and has also perused the
materials on record.
12. The petitioner herein was one of the candidates who applied and
he had due notice that on 05.02.2015, the petitioner was not
selected, but was put in the waiting list. The petitioner for reasons
best known did not challenge the selection and appointment of the
private respondent till 06.02.2018, when the present writ petition was
filed. It is the opinion of this Court that on this count alone, the
instant writ petition is required to be dismissed on the grounds of
delay and laches.
13. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of the submission
Page No.# 6/6
so made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
in respect to Rule 4(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 wherein it is
stipulated that no person under the age of 20 (twenty) years shall
drive a transport vehicle. It is relevant to take note of that driving a
transport vehicle is not an eligibility criteria mentioned in the
advertisement. What was mentioned in the advertisement was having
a Professional Driving Licence which is an ambiguous term not found
either in the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 or even in the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988. On this ground alone, the question of interfering
with the appointment of the private respondent herein does not arise.
Further to that, the petitioner has not challenged the driving licence of
the private respondent.
14. Considering the above, this Court finds no merit in the instant
writ petition, for which, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. No
costs.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
