JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed for directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of driver with effect from the date the post fell vacant with all consequential benefits. The facts of the case may be summarised thus. 2. The petitioner is the son of late Rahim Khan who died on January 25, 1992 while serving as Patwari in the village Odwala (Tehsil, Gadi), Banswara. At the time of the death of his father, the petitioner had attained the age of 23 years, he had passed 8th Class and was holding driving licence for heavy vehicles. He moved an application for appointing him as a driver or on any other suitable post under Rajasthan (Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying while in Service) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter to be called 'the Rules'). As no post of driver was vacant, he was appointed as Class IV employee. He was assured by the Collector, Banswara (respondent No. 2) that he would be appointed as driver as soon as the post falls vacant. Despite having a post of driver vacant, he is not being appointed as such by the respondent No. 2. 3. In reply, the respondents admit that the petitioner's father Rahim Khan died on 25.02.92 while he was serving as a patwari in Tehsil Gadi (Banswara), he moved an application for appointing him as a driver or on any other suitable post and he is having licence of driving heavy transport vehicles only. The remaining averments of the writ petition have been denied. It has further been averred that a post of driver was lying vacant, the petitioner moved the said application, he was not found eligible for the post of driver as he was not possessing licence for driving heavy and light motor vehicles and at present no post of driver is lying vacant. 4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the driver holding licence for driving heavy motor vehicles is entitled to drive light motor vehicles also and the respondent No. 2 could very well appoint the petitioner on the post of driver. He relied upon Vivek Goswami v. State, 1989 (1) R.L.R. 602. 5. In reply, it has been contended by the learned Government Advocate that it is clear from the photostat copy of the licence Annex. He relied upon Vivek Goswami v. State, 1989 (1) R.L.R. 602. 5. In reply, it has been contended by the learned Government Advocate that it is clear from the photostat copy of the licence Annex. 1 that it is for heavy goods vehicles only, a candidate holding licence for driving heavy and light motor vehicles can only be appointed on the post of driver, the petitioner was and is not holding the licence for driving light motor vehicles and as such the respondents have rightly refused to appoint him on the post of driver. 6. Order No. F.2(3) DOP/A-11/75 dated December 03, 1982 (Annex. R/1) runs as under : ''In supersession of this department order No. F. 2 (3) DOP/A-II/75 dated the 18th September, 1975 and in pursuance of rule 12 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Services (Recruitment and other Services Conditions Rules, 1960, where no rules or Government Order to the contrary exist, the following qualifications and method of recruitment are prescribed for recruitment to the post of Driver of Government Vehicles in the Various Departments of the State Government : Name of post Method of recruitment with percentage Qualifications and experience for direct recruitment Post from which promotion is to be made Qualifications and experience required for promotion 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Driver 90% by direct recruitment 10% by Promotion Educated upto VIII Class with heavy & light Duty Driving licence and three years experience and three years experience as a Driver and must also possess the following: Members of the Class IV Service of the Department concerned Education upto VIII class with heavy & light Duty Driving Licence and three years experience as a Driver and must also possess the following : (i) Weight not more than 65 kg. (ii) Sight 6-6 with or without (iii) Knowledge of roadside repairs (i) Weight more than 65 kg. (ii) Sight 6-6 with or without glasses (iii) Knowledge of roadside repairs." 7. The above quoted order shows that a candidate possessing heavy and light duty driving licence can only be appointed on the post of a driver. The driving licence dated 29.07.87 (Annex. 1) possessed by the petitioner is for heavy goods vehicle only. It is not for light motor vehicles. It is thus clear that the petitioner does not possess the required qualification i.e. holding heavy and light duty driving licence. The driving licence dated 29.07.87 (Annex. 1) possessed by the petitioner is for heavy goods vehicle only. It is not for light motor vehicles. It is thus clear that the petitioner does not possess the required qualification i.e. holding heavy and light duty driving licence. The respondent No. 2 has rightly refused to appoint him on the post of driver. 8. Section 7 (7) (a), Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 provided that a person who passed test in driving a heavy goods vehicles shall be deemed also to have passed the test in driving any medium goods vehicle or light motor vehicle. It did not provide that a person holding licence for driving a heavy goods vehicle should be deemed to possess licence for driving a light motor vehicle also. In Vivek Goswami's case, the petitioner was possessing the minimum qualification for the desired post. It is not so here. Thus the writ petition has no substance. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. *******