BILAL NAZKI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties. Notice had been issued. Counter has been filed. With the consent of the parties the petition is decided at this stage, ( 2 ) THE petitioner was selected after a process of selection for the post of Driver and a notification regarding his selection was issued on 6-8-97. Almost three years have passed but the petitioner has not been appointed. The petitioner states that after he was selected he was asked to report to the office of the Regional Manager by 2nd respondent on 17th January, 1998 with the following documents: (1) Original Educational qualifications. (2) Original Driving licence renewed upto date. (3) Original Caste Certificate issued by the MRO. (4) Original Employment registered card. He was also asked to submit 6 attested passport size photos. He reported on the due date with the requisite documents but he was not given the appointment. The second respondent however informed him on 8th June, 1999 that Regional Transport authority, Hyderabad by his letter dated 6-8-98 had informed the Corporation that the records pertaining to his driving licence were not traceable in the office of the central Zone, therefore the confirmation of the driving licence was not possible. The second respondent also advised him to produce documentary evidence to show that the driving licence produced by him was genuine. He had to prove it within 15 days; otherwise he was informed that his name would be deleted from the selected candidates. The petitioner informed the 2nd respondent that he had submitted the original certificates including the driving licence before him. He also informed him that the licence had been issued by Regional transport Authority, Hyderabad Central zone during the year 1978 and from 1978 he had regularly renewed the licence and because he had submitted his original licence with the respondents he was not able to get even any other job for two years for which period the licence was retained by the respondents. He also submitted a representation to the Secretary, RTA and requested him to certify the genuineness of the driving licence issued to him as he had got a job in A. P. S. R. T. C. The Additional licencing Authority, RTA, Hyderabad sent a communication to him on 2-7-99 which reads as under:"returned on verification of this office record the particulars pertains to the d. L. No. 163667/78 is not available, as the concerned DL register is destroyed. Hence the same is returned herewith. "the case of the petitioner is that the transport Authority had issued a driving licence in the year 1978 to him, due to the non-availability of the records they could not certify the licence to be correct and for this he could not be denied a job. He submits that there is nothing on record or in the possession of respondents to show that the original licence produced by him is not genuine. Therefore, refusal of job to him for the last three years and retention of original licence amounts to denial of rights to the petitioner. He seeks a direction from this court to the respondents that he should be immediately appointed as driver as he has already been selected. ( 3 ) IN the counter the facts have not been disputed. It is not disputed that the petitioner got selected. However, details have been given and it is stated that it is the practice in the department that once a driver is selected the driving licence is sent for verification. The learned Counsel for the respondents further stated that there have been many cases in which bogus licences were produced. Since the drivers are required to ply the public buses the corporation cannot take the risk of haying incompetent drivers which would endanger the lives of hundreds of people. Therefore, the practice is adopted to get the licence verified so that chances of appointing drivers with bogus licences is eliminated. This is being done keeping in view the public interest. Since the drivers are required to ply the public buses the corporation cannot take the risk of haying incompetent drivers which would endanger the lives of hundreds of people. Therefore, the practice is adopted to get the licence verified so that chances of appointing drivers with bogus licences is eliminated. This is being done keeping in view the public interest. ( 4 ) THE procedure adopted by the respondents cannot be faulted with in view of the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondents that bogus licences are available and people with bogus licences are also applying for the jobs, but at the same time a person cannot be faulted if the licence is not certified by the authorities because the records are not available with them. In the present case the Regional transport Authority has taken a stand that the licence granted to the petitioner pertains to a year of which the record has already been destroyed; therefore by no stretch of imagination it can be construed that the licence given to the petitioner was a bogus licence. A public document such as licence has a presumption of truth and if this presumption is to be disputed, it is for the person who raises such a dispute to prove that the document is not genuine. In the present case, the respondents dispute the genuineness of the driving licence produced by the petitioner; therefore it is for the respondents themselves to prove by cogent evidence that the document is not genuine. On the other hand, the respondents have asked by a notice the petitioner to prove that the licence he had produced is a genuine licence. This could never be done. A person who is in possession of a driving licence if asked to prove that his licence is genuine he may never be able to prove it, particularly when the records pertaining to the year in which the licence had been issued were destroyed. The records are available with the Regional transport Authority pertaining to the years when the licence was renewed and it could safely be presumed that the licence was renewed because it was a genuine licence. The records are available with the Regional transport Authority pertaining to the years when the licence was renewed and it could safely be presumed that the licence was renewed because it was a genuine licence. Had the records of 1978 been available there would have been no problem, but since the records of 1978 have been destroyed therefore the respondents should have taken into consideration that the licence has been renewed and there is nothing to suggest that the licence produced by the petitioner is bogus. In such circumstances, I feel that the respondents have been unnecessarily unreasonable in the case of the petitioner. They have not only denied him appointment for the last three years but they have retained his original driving licence for more than two years. Since the original licence was not available with the petitioner he is right in saying that he could not for the last two years get even an alternate job. ( 5 ) FOR these reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to issue appointment orders to the petitioner immediately. However, they are at liberty to inquire whether the licence produced by the petitioner is genuine or not genuine. If at any point of time they could come to the conclusion on the basis of definite evidence that the licence is not genuine, they shall be within their rights to pass appropriate orders. Costs Rs. 500/ -.