Saturday, 09, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Rohan Singh vs Union Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 6670 Raj

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 6670 Raj
Judgement Date : 5 March, 2021

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rohan Singh vs Union Of India on 5 March, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Mehta

(1 of 3) [CW-3900/2021]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3900/2021

Rohan Singh S/o Shri Balwant Singh, Aged About 24 Years, B/c Bisht , R/o V.p.o. Kandai , Distt. Chamoli (Uttarakhand) Presently Working As Driver (Ordinary Grade) , 751 (I) , Tpt Pl Asc (Civil Gt) C/o 56 A.p.o Jodhpur

----Petitioner Versus

1. Union Of India, Through Secretary To The Government , Department Of Home Affairs , Government Of India , New Delhi

2. Director General, Supplies And Transport (Dgst) , Quartermaster Generals Branch , Integrated Hq Of Mod (Army) , Dhq Po New Delhi - 110011

3. Lieutenant Colonel, Officer Commanding , 751(I) Tpt Pt, Army Service Cros (Civil Gt) C/o 56 A.p.o.

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. D. S. Sodha



                     JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                 Judgment

05/03/2021

1. By way of the present writ petition the petitioner has

challenged the order dated 17.02.2021, whereby his services have

been terminated.

2. The facts relevant for the present purposes are that the

petitioner applied for the post of Driver (Ordinary Grade),

pursuant to the recruitment notification issued by the respondents

(Annex.3). The essential terms in relation to qualification for the

said post given in the advertisement aforesaid reads thus :

(2 of 3) [CW-3900/2021]

"(i) Matriculation or equivalent from a recognized University/Board.

(ii) Must possess civil driving license for heavy vehicles.

(iii) Two years experience of driving heavy vehicle."

3. The petitioner was granted provisional license to drive heavy

vehicle on 05.12.2017 whereafter he was issued a permanent

driving license on 31.01.2018.

4. Petitioner applied for the said post in the month of August,

2019, whereafter he was selected and offered appointment by the

respondents, vide order dated 16.03.2020.

5. Petitioner was allowed to join in furtherance of the aforesaid

appointment order, but then, a show cause notice dated

06.11.2020 came to be issued to him asking him why his selection

be not cancelled as he was not qualified to be appointed, because

his license was issued on 31.01.2018. According to the

respondents, the petitioner does not fulfill the criteria of requisite

two years' driving experience.

6. Mr. Sodha, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that

on the date of issuance of appointment order i.e. 16.03.2020, the

period of two years from issuance of permanent license was

complete and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner did

not have two years' experience of driving heavy vehicle, when he

was appointed.

7. Learned counsel further argued that the terms of

advertisement do not specify the date from which the experience

would be reckoned and as such, the period is to be counted from

the date of issuance of appointment order. He thus, argued that

the petitioner was having two years' experience and cannot be

held ineligible/disqualified.

(3 of 3) [CW-3900/2021]

8. So far as having two years' experience of driving heavy

vehicle, if counted on the date of advertisement is concerned, the

same cannot be disputed.

9. In considered opinion of this Court, in light of catena of

judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court and in the case of Ashok

Kumar Sonkar Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2007 ) 4 SCC

54, unless relevant rules or the terms of the advertisement

otherwise provides eligibility criteria or education qualifications are

required to be seen on the date of application or latest by the last

date of submitting application form.

10. Even if the period of experience is reckoned from the date of

issuance of provisional license, the petitioner had not completed

two years, as on the last date of submission of application form,

let alone the date of application (August 2019).

11. This being the position, the petitioner has rightly been held

ineligible/disqualified for the appointment.

12. There is no force in the petition. The same is, therefore,

dismissed.

13. Stay application is also dismissed.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 134-A.Arora/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter