Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gautam Sikhwal vs Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur on 20 October, 2021
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Sandeep Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5046/2021
Gautam Sikhwal S/o Shri Aditya Narayan, Aged About 28 Years,
Resident of 858, Bus Stand Nimbi Jodhan, Tehsil Ladnun, District
Nagaur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, through its Registrar
General.
2. Registrar (Exam.), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jaidev Singh Bhati
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 had applied for the post of Driver, for which an
advertisement was issued by the High Court Administration on
22.07.2020. The petitioner holds a valid licence for light motor
vehicle but not for transport vehicle. The petitioner has,
therefore, been declared ineligible.
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:
"Learned counsel for the petitioner has
vehemently contended that the petitioner is holding a
valid licence for light motor vehicle. This licence was
(2 of 3) [CW-5046/2021]
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
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
(3 of 3) [CW-5046/2021]
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."
Under the circumstances, without recording separate
reasons, the petition is also dismissed.
(SANDEEP MEHTA),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ
5-MohitTak/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
