Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rohan Singh vs Union Of India on 24 March, 2021
Bench: Sangeet Lodha, Devendra Kachhawaha
HIGH COURT of JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 219/2021
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
----Appellant
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 Pi,
Army Service Corps (Civil GT) C/o 56 A.P.O.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Mathur.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA
Order
24/03/2021
1. This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated
05.03.2021 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court whereby
writ petition preferred by the writ-petitioner/appellant herein
impugning the order dated 17.02.2021 terminating his services on
the ground of not having the requisite experience of two years
prior to the date of issuance of the advertisement, has been
dismissed.
(2 of 4) [SAW-219/2021]
2. The facts, in nut shell, are that the appellant applied for the
post of Driver (Ordinary Grade) pursuant to recruitment
notification (Annex.3) issued by the respondents and he was
granted appointment on the said post vide order dated
16.03.2020. However, a show cause notice dated 06.11.2020
came to be issued to him calling upon to show cause as to why his
selection be not cancalled, inasmuch as on the date of issuance of
notification, he was not having the requisite two years' experience
of possessing the licence to ply the vehicle.
3. Mr. Kuldeep Mathur, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant submits that on the date of appointment i.e. on
16.03.2020 the appellant/writ-petitioner was having to his credit
the requisite two years' experience of driving, however, he fairly
submitted that on the date of issuance of notification, the
appellant was not having the requisite experience.
4. This Court in the case of Dharmendra Singh Sonigra &
Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [D.B. Civil Special Appeal
(W) No.684/2014] decided on 25.03.2016 has held that if the
appellant/s were not possessing the requisite three years'
experience of driving heavy duty vehicles, they were not entitled
to be appointed. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads
thus:
"7.We have considered the rival submissions of
the learned counsels for the parties and perused the
material on record.
8.Indisputably, the recruitment to the posts of
Driver in the Department of Forest, Government of
Rajasthan, are governed by the Rules of 1963. The
eligibility qualification for recruitment to the post of
Driver as prescribed under Schedule IV of the Rules of
1963, reads as under:
(3 of 4) [SAW-219/2021]
"Educated upto VIII Class with heavy and light
duty driving license and 3 years experience as
Driver and must also possess the following:
(i) Weight not more than 65 Kg.
(ii) Sight 6 x 6 with or without glasses.
(iii) Knowledge of road side repair & efficiency in
Driving to be examined through a trade test by
the Appointing Authority "
9. As per the mandate of Section 3 of Motor
Vehicles Act,1988, no person is authorised to drive a
motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an
effective driving license issued to him authorising him
to drive the vehicle. Obviously, the requirement of
experience as Driver as provided under the Rules of
1963, is linked with the requirement of the license
authorising the candidate to drive the heavy and light
duty vehicles and therefore, it goes without saying
that the candidate applying for recruitment to the
post must possess the requisite experience of driving
both light and heavy motor vehicles. It is not disputed
before this court that as on the date of advertisement,
the appellants were not possessing three years
experience of driving heavy duty vehicles and thus,
apparently, they were lacking in requisite qualification
for recruitment to the post of Driver as prescribed
under the Rules of 1963.
10.In this view of the matter, we are fully in
agreement with the view taken by the learned Single
Judge and thus, no case for interference by us in intra
court appeal jurisdiction is made out.
11.The special appeal is therefore, dismissed. No
order as to costs."
5. The learned Single Judge relying upon the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs. Union
of India & Ors. (2007) 4 SCC 54, has rightly observed that unless
relevant 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.
(4 of 4) [SAW-219/2021]
6. We are in full agreement with the view taken by the learned
Single Judge and, therefore, no case for interference by us in intra
court appeal jurisdiction is made out.
7. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J (SANGEET LODHA),J
8-DJ/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
