Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 589 (KER)

Satheesh v. Public Service Commission

2001-10-19

K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR

body2001
Judgment :- K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. Petitioner was an applicant to the post of reserve driver in the service of the K.S.R.T.C. when the first respondent Public Service Commission initiated recruitment to that post. The petitioner was admitted to written test. Thereafter applications were scrutinised. It was found that petitioner did not possess the required qualification in so far as he did not completes years after acquiring licence to drive heavy passenger vehicle and as he did not have an endorsement in the driving licence to drive heavy goods vehicle. Ext. P2 is the communication stating the reason rejecting his application. The petitioner filed an appeal Ext. P4. But it did not produce any result. Therefore he approached this court seeking to quash Ext. P2 and to consider him for appointment. During the pendency of the Original Petition, the petitioner was interviewed. And he had been given due ranking subject to the result of the Original Petition. 2. Now the question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is qualified in terms of the notification. 3. It is contended by the counsel for the Public Service Commission that pursuant to Ext. P2, the petitioner submitted the relevant document and the Public Service Commission found out that defects noted in Ext. P2 were not real defects. But at the same time a further defect was noticed that the petitioner did not have as on the last date fixed to file application seven years total currency of his driving licence. 4. According to the counsel for the Public Service Commission, the petitioner obtained driving licence on 25.9.87. That was valid until 24.5.90 for 3 years. The petitioner renewed it later until 1.9.92. The last date for submitting the application was 5.8.92. The licence was thus current for a further period of 3 years 11 months and 5 days. Therefore the total currency of the driving licence is 6 years 11 months and 5 days. It is short of 25 days for completing 7 years as required in the notification. Therefore, he was not qualified. 5. This contention is answered by the petitioner on two counts. At first, this defect was not pointed out to the petitioner. If so, the petitioner could have shown sufficient reasons to satisfy the commission that there was no such defect. Therefore, he was not qualified. 5. This contention is answered by the petitioner on two counts. At first, this defect was not pointed out to the petitioner. If so, the petitioner could have shown sufficient reasons to satisfy the commission that there was no such defect. Secondly he should not have been found not qualified on any count which was not notified to him when Ext. P2 was issued. It was further contended that even that allegation is unfounded. He did have authorisation to drive the vehicles for 30 days more after the expiry of his licence. It is so provided in S.10 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Licence was granted on 25.10.83. It had validity until 24.11.86, rather than 2410.86 as contended by the Public Service Commission. When this statutory provision is taken note of total currency of licence will be 7 years and 5 days more than the period required in the notification. The submission made by the counsel for the Public Service Commission in this regard that in the meanwhile the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came into force with effect from 1.7.89 and that during the interregnum he did not have driving licence does not have any relevance. 6. For the total currency of the driving licence both the period have been taken note of by the Public Service Commission. The first period comes when the 1939 Act had been in force. Counsel submitted that even admittedly by Ext. P9, the petitioner did have currency of driving licence for 6 years 11 months and 5 days. The counsel submits that even though driving licence had expired on 24.10.86 as per S.1 f) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as existing then, any licence, inspire of expiry, would be effective for one more month. When S.10 is applied the validity of the licence will be for one more month. When this one month is added to the period admitted by the Commission the petitioner satisfies the condition regarding qualification. The petitioner shall be therefore taken as duly ranked in .the current Us and the Public Service Commission shall be liable to advice the petitioner according to his turn. The Original Petition is accordingly allowed.