Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sumer Singh Rajpurohit vs The Registrar General, Raj. High ... on 20 October, 2021
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Sandeep Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7942/2021
Sumer Singh Rajpurohit S/o Govind Singh, Aged About 36 Years,
By Caste Rajpurohit, R/o Village Rampuriya Bhatiyan, Bilara,
District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court,
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh Rajpurohit
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. One of the eligibility criteria was that the candidate
must have a valid driving licence for light motor vehicle as well as
transport vehicle. The petitioner applied for the post in question
by uploading a licence, which showed that he had a driving licence
for light motor vehicle but not a transport vehicle.
In a separate order passed today in Neelam Kanwar vs.
Rajasthan High Court [D.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.4565/2021], we have considered this issue and dismissed
the petition making some observations. The order reads as
follows:
(2 of 3) [CW-7942/2021]
"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 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
(3 of 3) [CW-7942/2021]
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
transport vehicle, the requirement for periodical
renewal is more stringent.
In the result, the petition is dismissed."
The petitioner, however, seems to have obtained a licence for
transport vehicle on 15.10.2020 and also tried to further provide
the same to the High Court Administration. However, this event
took place after the last date for submission of application for the
post in question and therefore, such development is correctly not
taken into account by the High Court Administration.
The petition is dismissed accordingly.
(SANDEEP MEHTA),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ
19-MohitTak/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
