Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Neelam Kanwar vs Rajasthan High Court on 20 October, 2021
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Sandeep Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4565/2021
Neelam Kanwar D/o Shri Bajrang Singh, Aged About 31 Years,
By Caste Ranawat, Resident Of Village And Post Bhunas, Via Pur,
District Bhilwara.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Through Its Registrar General.
2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surendra Singh Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Dr. Sachin Acharya with
Mr. Manvendra Singh
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Order
20/10/2021
The petitioner has applied for the post of Driver, for which an
advertisement was issued by the High Court Administration on
22.07.2020. As per the recruitment rules as well as
advertisement, in order to be eligible for appointment, the
candidates had to have a valid driving licence for light motor
vehicle as well as transport vehicle. The petitioner applied for the
post after uploading a driving licence, which showed that she had
a driving licence only for the purpose of light motor vehicle. She
was allowed to participate in the screening test without verification
of the eligibility. However, upon examination of her eligibility, the
(2 of 4) [CW-4565/2021]
High Court Administartion was of the opinion that she was not
qualified since she did not have a valid driving licence for transport
vehicle. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this petition
contending that her performance in the screening test would
justify for calling her for further selection and she was otherwise
qualified for the post in question.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended
that the petitioner is holding a valid licence for light motor vehicle.
This licence was uploaded along with her application for
appointment. Learned counsel submitted that by virtue of
judgment of the Supreme Court in Mukund Devagan vs.
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. [2017 (14) SCC 663] and
on the basis of Circular dated 16.04.2018 issued by the Ministry of
Road Transport and Highways, a person holding a light motor
vehicle licence would not require a separate licence for transport
vehicle. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, thus,
the petitioner was duly qualified and despite this, she was not
called for further test.
On the other hand, the case of the High Court Administration
is that the light motor vehicle and transport vehicle are not
synonymous category. There are different provisions under the
Motor Vehicles Act. There is clear distinction between the two. In
particular, learned counsel for the respondents highlighted that
even as per the Circular dated 16.04.2018, a person holding valid
driving licence for light motor vehicle can drive transport vehicle
only as long as unladen weight does not exceed 7500 kg. In case
of the High Court advertisement, there was no such specification
provided. In fact, the High Court Administration required that the
(3 of 4) [CW-4565/2021]
Driver should be appointed who can drive the vehicle of which
unladen weight may exceed 7500 kg. Also. It was precisely for
this reason that the High Court Administration has clearly provided
in the advertisement that the candidate, in order to be eligbile for
appointment, must hold a valid licence for light motor vehicle as
well as transport vehicle. In the present case, the petitioner does
not satisfy the requirement.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having
perused the documents on record, we find no reason to interfere.
The High Court Administration has held the petitioner ineligible for
appointment on the ground that she does not hold a valid driving
licence for transport vehicle. The fact that no separate driving
licence has been issued in favour of the petitioner is undisputed.
By virtue of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mukund
Devagan (supra) and Circular dated 16.04.2018 issued by the
Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, the petitioner may be
eligible to drive a transport vehicle but only as long as unladen
weight does not exceed 7500 kg. The requirement by the High
Court Administration has to be borne in mind while testing the
qualification of the candidates for appointment. We may also
notice that Section 14(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act envisages that
a licence of driving a transport vehicle would be effective for a
period of 3 years and in case of other licence, the same would be
effective for a period of 20 years from the date of issue, of course,
subject to the ceiling of the age of the holder being 50 years.
Thus, the Motor Vehicles Act also makes the clear distinction
between the licence for transport vehicle and rest. In case of a
(4 of 4) [CW-4565/2021]
transport vehicle, the requirement for periodical renewal is more
stringent.
In the result, the petition is dismissed.
(SANDEEP MEHTA),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ
3-MohitTak/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
