Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 214 (KER)

Kerala Public Service Commission v. Biju

2008-03-27

K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, P.N.RAVINDRAN

body2008
Judgment :- Balakrishnan Nair, J. The Public Service Commission is the appellant. The first respondent herein was the writ petitioner. The point that arises for decision in this appeal is whether the proviso to Section 14(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "M.V. Act") will apply while considering the validity of a driving licence, when recruitment to the post of Driver in K.S.R.T.C. is made. 2. The Public Service Commission invited applications for appointment to the post of Driver in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation by Ext. P-4 notification. The last date for submission of applications was 31-1-2005. One of the essential qualifications prescribed was that the applicant should possess a valid driving licence with endorsement to drive heavy duty vehicles and should have completed seven years after getting the driving licence. He should also have completed at least three years after getting the endorsement to drive heavy duty vehicles in the licence. The notification further stipulated that the driving licence issued after 16-1-1979 must have endorsement both for heavy goods and heavy passenger vehicles. The driving licence should be a current one on the date of the application also. The petitioner submitted his application in time. He was considered for selection. Finally, when the rank list was published as per Ext. P-7, his name was included among the persons whose results were withheld. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the writ petition was filed. 3. The writ petitioner contended that though the licence to drive transport vehicles expired on 21-1-2005, it remained valid for a further period of one month, by virtue of Section 14(2) of the M.V. Act. He later got it renewed for a further period of three years upto 3-4-2008. His licence to drive motor vehicles other than transport vehicles was valid upto 1-5-2010. As evident from Exts. P-2 and P-3, he had got necessary endorsement, enabling him to drive heavy goods and heavy passenger vehicles with effect from 4-10-1996. The said endorsement has no time-limit. In view of the above position, the petitioner contended that he was qualified to apply for the post. 4. Respondents 1 and 2 filed a counter-affidavit, resisting the prayers in the writ petition. In paragraph 4 of the said counter-affidavit, it is stated as follows: "The petitioner is an applicant for the post. The said endorsement has no time-limit. In view of the above position, the petitioner contended that he was qualified to apply for the post. 4. Respondents 1 and 2 filed a counter-affidavit, resisting the prayers in the writ petition. In paragraph 4 of the said counter-affidavit, it is stated as follows: "The petitioner is an applicant for the post. He is provisionally admitted in the test based on the claim made in the application. It is submitted that from the face of Exhibit P-2 itself it is evident that the petitioner is not entitled for being considered for the post. It is also quite evident from the pleading that the petitioners licence expired on 21-1-2005 and the renewal is only on 2-4-2005. It is submitted that in Exhibit P-3, it is specifically stated under the head `Renewal of Driving Licence that ‘the licence to drive motor vehicles other than transport vehicles is hereby renewed from 2-4-2005 to 3-4-2008." The main point canvassed by the Public Service Commission was that the petitioners driving licence expired on 21-1-2005; and he was not having a valid driving licence as on 31-1-2005, the last date fixed for receipt of the application. The learned Single Judge considered the rival contentions. The learned Judge took the view that since the authorization to drive heavy goods and heavy passenger vehicles was endorsed on 4-10-1996 without any time-limit and the licence to drive a non-transport vehicle remained valid upto 1-5-2010, he is qualified to be considered for selection. In that view, the learned Judge allowed the writ petition. 5. The aggrieved Public Service Commission has filed this appeal. The learned standing counsel for the Public Service Commission Sri Alexander Thomas submitted that the licence should be valid on the date of application as well as on the last date for receipt of the application also. The proviso to Section 14 (2) of the M.V. Act will be applicable, if only the petitioner has moved for renewal of the licence within one month of expiry of it. Further, the extended period of validity of one month will be applicable only in relation to the insurance liability. In support of the said submission, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on a decision of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 23873 of 2005. Further, the extended period of validity of one month will be applicable only in relation to the insurance liability. In support of the said submission, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on a decision of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 23873 of 2005. It is pointed out that the above decision was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No. 1416 of 2006. Reliance was also placed on a recent decision of this Court in W. P. (C) No. 33082 of 2007, concerning the very same selection. 6. The learned counsel for the first respondent Sri R.T. Pradeep supported the decision, of the learned Single Judge. He submitted that in any view of the matter, the first respondent is entitled to get the benefit of the proviso to Section 14 of the M.V. Act. 7. Section 14 of the M.V. Act deals with the currency of driving licence. The said provision reads as follows: "14. Currency of licences to drive motor vehicles.—(1) A learners licence issued under this Act shall, subject to the other provisions of this Act, be effective for a period of six months from the date of issue of the licence. 7. Section 14 of the M.V. Act deals with the currency of driving licence. The said provision reads as follows: "14. Currency of licences to drive motor vehicles.—(1) A learners licence issued under this Act shall, subject to the other provisions of this Act, be effective for a period of six months from the date of issue of the licence. .(2) A driving licence issued or renewed under this Act shall, (a) in the case of a licence to drive a transport vehicle, be effective for a period of three years: Provided that in the case of licence to drive a transport vehicle carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature be effective for a period of one year and renewal thereof shall be subject to the condition that the driver undergoes one day refresher course of the prescribed syllabus; and .(b) in the case of any other licence, .(i) if the person obtaining the licence, either originally or on renewal thereof, has not attained the age of fifty years on the date of issue or, as the case may be, renewal thereof, .(a) beeffective for a period of twenty years from the date of such issue or renewal; or .(b) until the date on which such person attains the age of fifty years, whichever is earlier; .(ii) if the person referred to in sub-clause (i), has attained the age of fifty years on the date of issue or as the case may be renewal thereof, be effective, on payment of such fee as may be prescribed, for a period of five years from the date of such issue or renewal: Provided that every driving licence shall, notwithstanding its expiry under this sub-section, continue to be effective for a period of thirty days from such expiry." (emphasis supplied) We notice that the licence of the petitioner to drive transport vehicles expired on 21-1-2005. The last date for receipt of the application was 31-1-2005. The application was submitted on 24-1-2005. Going by the proviso to Section 14 (2) of the M.V. Act, the driving licence remained effective upto 21-2-2005. That means, on the date of submission of the application and on the last date for receipt of the application, he was having a driving licence, which remained effective. Therefore, the writ petitioners licence should be treated as a current licence in terms of Ext. P-4 notification. 8. That means, on the date of submission of the application and on the last date for receipt of the application, he was having a driving licence, which remained effective. Therefore, the writ petitioners licence should be treated as a current licence in terms of Ext. P-4 notification. 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the Public Service Commission that the proviso to Section 14 (2) of the M.V.Act will operate only for the purpose of insurance matters, is plainly untenable. We find no such restriction in Section 14 of the M.V. Act. A driving licence will remain effective and valid for all purposes under law for a period of one month, even after the date of expiry of the same. The Parliament has expressed its intention in this regard in unmistakable terms. Therefore, neither this Court nor the Public Service Commission can ignore it. In the judgment in W. P. (P) No. 23873 of 2005, the effect of the proviso to Section 14(2) of the M.V. Act was not considered. The Division Bench Judgment in W.A.No.1416 of 2006 also did not consider the said point. But, it is true that a learned Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.33082 of 2007 considered the effect of the said proviso and held that the benefit of the same cannot be extended to a candidate, who should have valid driving licence for submitting the application. We find it difficult to agree with the. said view expressed by the learned Judge. Further, we notice that in that case, the petitioners driving licence expired on 27-12-2004. So, the period of one month expired on 27-1-2005. The petitioner therein submitted his application on 22-1-2005 and the last dl for receipt of the application was 31-1-2005. So, the proviso will not help the applicant to contend that he was having a valid driving licence on the last date for receipt of the application. Therefore, on the facts of that case, the applicability of the proviso did not arise. Thus, the view expressed by the learned Single Judge is only an obiter dicta. 9. In the judgment under appeal, the view, taken by the learned Judge that a valid licence to drive the transport vehicles is not necessary, cannot be upheld. Therefore, on the facts of that case, the applicability of the proviso did not arise. Thus, the view expressed by the learned Single Judge is only an obiter dicta. 9. In the judgment under appeal, the view, taken by the learned Judge that a valid licence to drive the transport vehicles is not necessary, cannot be upheld. The learned Judge proceeded on the footing that if the applicant has got a valid licence to drive motor vehicles other than transport vehicles and there is an endorsement in it concerning heavy goods and heavy passenger vehicles, he is qualified to apply for the post. The said view cannot be supported. He should have a valid licence to drive transport vehicles, which should contain an endorsement concerning heavy goods and heavy passenger vehicles. But, by virtue of the proviso to Section 14 (2) of the M.V. Act, the first respondent should be treated as having a valid licence to drive transport vehicles on the date of submission of his application and the last date fixed for receipt of applications also. Thus, we affirm the judgment of the learned Single Judge, though on a different ground. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.