Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1568 (JHR)

Kamal Kishor Bari v. State of Jharkhand

2015-12-17

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2015
ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The order dated 19.8.2014 is recorded herein under as it deals with the controversy in the matter of appointment of the petitioner as Driver Constable under Advertisement No.1/2010. “The case of the petitioner for appointment as driver constable under advertisement no. 1/2010 has been rejected by Annexure-5 dated 11.8.2012 as there was difference of the date of birth in the driving license bearing no.3303/04 submitted by him along with his other educational certificates while making the application before the respondents against the said advertisement with that of the date of birth recorded in the Matriculation certificate. The respondents have enclosed the letter dated 4.2.2011 of the District Transport Officer, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa (Annexure-B) as per which the date of birth 2.9.1985 is made as 2.9.1988. Petitioner has enclosed a photo copy of the driving license no. 3303/04 as part of Annexure-4 in which the date of birth is shown as 2.9.1988 and there are two dates of issuance one is of 18.10.2004 and the other is 25.3., the year of which is not legible. The parties are at issue on the question whether the petitioner had at all submitted the driving license showing his date of birth as 2.9.1988 and not 2.9.1985. Respondents should therefore produce the copy of the driving license submitted by the petitioner at the time of making his application and also the copies of the documents on the basis of which the driving license was earlier issued to the petitioner and if later on revised. The D.T.O, West Singhbhum shall provide the necessary information to the office of Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum as directed herein above. Let the matter appear after 3 weeks under the same heading”. 3. Respondents in the supplementary counter affidavit have again reiterated their stand that the driving license of the petitioner showed the date of birth 2.9.1985 issued on 8.10.2004, which however has been made to appear by overwriting as 2.9.1988. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his date of birth as per Matriculation certificate is 2.9.1988 and the difference in the years being highlighted by the respondents may be just slip of pen, which has later on corrected by the Office of District Transport Officer, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his date of birth as per Matriculation certificate is 2.9.1988 and the difference in the years being highlighted by the respondents may be just slip of pen, which has later on corrected by the Office of District Transport Officer, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa. He submits that petitioner even at the age of 16 years and above, was entitled for license for driving motorcycle as per Section 4 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is submitted that the motorcycle with the engine capacity not exceeding 50 CC may be driven in a public place by a person after attaining the age of 16 years. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in procurement of driving license by the petitioner on 8.10.2004 initially for the purpose of driving motorcycle, though he was only 16 years and few months old at that point of time. It is submitted that petitioner's original driving license has been converted to drive Transport Vehicle on 5.3.2010, which renders him eligible in the matter of selection of Driver Constable under Advertisement no.1/2010. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of Ashok Kumar Ravi Vs. State of Jharkhand & others in W.P.S. No. 3852 of 2013 dated 21.7.2014 to advance his submission that in the said case also there was difference in the date of birth recorded in the original driving license by the District Transport Officer, Hazaribag which was later on corrected by the same Office. Considering the correction in the date of birth recorded in the driving license, the respondents were directed to reconsider the matter and take a decision on the claim for appointment as Police Driver under the same advertisement by the judgment rendered by this Court. It is submitted that petitioner's case being on similar footing should be treated alike. 6. Respondent-State have harped upon the grounds of rejection as incorporated in the impugned order itself at Annexure-5 and supported by averments made in the counter affidavit also. It is their stand that the date of birth in the driving license was tampered by the petitioner to make it 2.9.1988 in place of 2.9.1985. Moreover, when the petitioner obtained the driving license, he was only 16 years of age in October, 2004 and could not be eligible for such appointment of Police Driver. It is their stand that the date of birth in the driving license was tampered by the petitioner to make it 2.9.1988 in place of 2.9.1985. Moreover, when the petitioner obtained the driving license, he was only 16 years of age in October, 2004 and could not be eligible for such appointment of Police Driver. It is submitted that in such circumstances, when there is a difference in age or Date of Birth in documents submitted by the petitioner and found as such on verification vide Annexure-B letter no. 65 dated 4.2.2011 of the District Transport Officer, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, this Court should not direct the respondents to appoint him on the post of Police Driver. 7. Having considered the submission of the parties and relevant material facts pleaded, irrespective of the controversy relating to the date of birth i.e. 2.9.1985 or 2.9.1988, one aspect which cannot be ignored while considering the claim of the petitioner for appointment under Advertisement No.1/10 on the post of Police Driver is that participating candidates were required to produce the valid driving license obtained at least 2 years prior to the issuance of the advertisement. Clause 3(gha) of the advertisement at Annexure-1 is to that effect. 8. From the facts of the case noticed herein above, it is evident that petitioner got driving license to drive Transport Vehicle only after his license was converted as such on 5.3.2010 by the issuing authority i.e. District Transport Officer, West Singhbhum, which is enclosed to the writ petition as part of Annexure-4. Petitioner on the strength of the license to drive motorcycle obtained in the year 2004 cannot claim eligibility to participate in the recruitment exercise for the post of Police Driver on the face of the conditions incorporated at Clause 3(gha) of the advertisement. It therefore appears that petitioner was not eligible in terms of the advertisement to claim appointment on the post of Police Driver on these facts itself. 9. From the judgment rendered in the case of Ashok Kumar Ravi(supra), it appears that the D.T.O, Hazaribag, the issuing authority had made correction in the driving license of the said petitioner in the date of birth entry from 15.11.1983 to 8.5.1987 and communicated to the respondents also. 9. From the judgment rendered in the case of Ashok Kumar Ravi(supra), it appears that the D.T.O, Hazaribag, the issuing authority had made correction in the driving license of the said petitioner in the date of birth entry from 15.11.1983 to 8.5.1987 and communicated to the respondents also. The driving license itself was issued on 22.5.2007 i.e. 3 years prior to the issuance of the instant advertisement 1/10, which was also in consideration in the said case. Taking into account those facts, the Senior Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum was directed to take a decision on the said petitioner's claim taking into account all attendant facts and documents within stipulated period on the representation of the said petitioner. The fact of the present case therefore are distinct and no mileage can be drawn from the said judgment by the petitioner. 9. Therefore, no grounds for interference are made in the present writ petition, which is dismissed accordingly.