JUDGMENT : 1. Under advertisement dated 10.10.2014, the Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur invited applications from eligible candidates to be considered for appointment as Driver with Rajasthan High Court & Rajasthan Legal Service Authority. As per Para-4 of the advertisement aforesaid, an aspirant to be considered for appointment as Driver must be having eye-sight of 6/6 with or without spectacles and further his weight should not be more than 65 Kilogram (Kg). The condition is in terms of Clause 31 of the order issued by Hon'ble the Chief Justice as per Rule 7 of the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2002') prescribing qualifications required for appointment as Driver. The Clause aforesaid reads as under:- "31. DRIVER - Recruitment to the post of Driver shall be made by direct recruitment after holding a job test and personal interview from amongst the eligible candidates on the recommendation of a Committee nominated by the Appointing Authority, a. who have passed the VIIth Class from any Government School or any School recognised by the Government for the purpose; possesses a Light Motor Vehicle driving licence and also 3 years' experience as a driver, and, (deleted) b. possesses- (i) weight not more than 65 k.g. (ii) Sight 6/6 with or without glasses, (iii) knowledge of road side repairs of motor vehicles". 2. To challenge the Clause aforesaid, these petitions for writ are preferred. 3. The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner/s while questioning validity of the provision aforesaid is that fixing of 65 Kg maximum weight to be considered for appointment as Driver is highly irrational, manifestly arbitrary and is having no nexus with the object sought to be achieved by regulating the recruitment of the Drivers. It is stated that the criteria for qualification or disqualification has to be co-related with height of the candidate. It is submitted that if condition No. 4(2) of the advertisement dated 10.10.2004 is allowed to be executed, it would mean that the candidates having shorter height would be selected, though, they may be overweight and the candidates with height above 5" and 4' shall be disqualified through having weight in consonance to the criteria settled assess physical fitness in scientific terms. As per medical science, a healthy individual has one Kilogram of weight on 1 inch of his body height. 4. As per medical science, a healthy individual has one Kilogram of weight on 1 inch of his body height. 4. While contesting the writ petition, the submission made on behalf of respondent is that "fixing of 65 kg. maximum weight for the post of Driver in no manner can be said to be irrational, as the same has been fixed in order to appointment physically fit persons for the post of Driver. Further, Rule 31 of the Rules of 2002, prescribe only for maximum limit of body weight and eye sight of 6/6 with or without glasses. It does not prescribe any condition of height so that the ratio of height and weight is not required to be considered, therefore, the criteria of weight prescribed in the advertisement cannot be challenged on the basis of ratio of height and weight. It is also relevant to mention that the job of driver requires top level physical fitness as well as flexibility so fixing the criteria of upto 65 kg. weight allows the respondent, who being an employer, is the best judge to select the best talent and physically fit candidates for the post of driver. Therefore, the condition of maximum weight for drivers to be 65 kg is neither arbitrary or unjust or unreasonable" (quoted from reply to the writ petition). It is also stated on behalf of the respondent that the petitioners participated in the process of selection without raising any objection about the condition impugned, therefore, on being failed to be selected as Driver, it is not open for them to question validity of the Rule concern. 5. Heard learned counsels appearing on behalf of the rival parties. 6. Before coming to the argument advanced by learned counsel, we would like to state that Chapter II of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1988') pertains to licencing of drivers of motor vehicles. As per Section 3 of that, no person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorizing to drive a vehicle. No person, as per Section 4 of the Act of 1988 under the age of 18 years shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place and Section 6 of the Act of 1988 provide certain other restrictions to have driving licence. No person, as per Section 4 of the Act of 1988 under the age of 18 years shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place and Section 6 of the Act of 1988 provide certain other restrictions to have driving licence. Section 18 of the Act of 1988 confers upon Central Government power to prescribe the authority for grant of driving licences to drive motor vehicle, which are property of the Central Government and are used for government purposes. Section 19 pertains to power of licencing authority to disqualify a driving licence or revoke such licence. The Motor Vehicle Act or the Rules framed under Section 139 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 nowhere prescribes any condition akin to the condition under challenge in this petition for writ, hence, the weight of a person beyond 65 Kg is no impediment in having driving licence under the Act of 1988 and the Rules framed thereunder. The condition aforesaid, as such, is as the order issued under relevant Service Rules only. 7. The submission of learned counsels appearing on behalf of petitioners is that the condition impugned is bad, being irrational and manifestly arbitrary. It is stated that to assess physical fitness of a person to hold the post of Driver, the criteria must be a scientific one, whereas in the case in hand there is no rational for keeping 65 Kg of weight as maximum weight. It is asserted that physical fitness of an incumbent is required to be examined by taking into consideration total body structure including height of the aspirant. The prescription of maximum weight without considering height of the person concerned does not represent correct physical fitness, thus, the condition under challenge is highly irrational. Much emphasis is given by learned counsel upon the importance of "Body Mass Index", that determines physical fitness of a person by taking into consideration his/her height and weight. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, beside the averments contained in written, while defending the provision under challenge, pointed out that in other Service Rules framed by the Governor of Rajasthan invoking powers under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the maximum weight prescribed to hold the post of Driver is also 65 Kg, thus, in the instant case too the same criteria is adopted to assess physical fitness. 9. 9. True it is, a Driver is suppose to possess absolute physical fitness and no compromise with physical fitness of a driver can be made, hence, prescription of criteria for physical fitness under the Rules while employing a driver is quite just, but such criteria must meet four corners of reasonability as per the standards required to determine physical fitness. The Rules of 2002, though, prescribes maximum weight to be considered for appointment as Driver, but no criteria of having minimum height is given. It is well settled that weight of a human body is having direct co-relation with height of that body and the "Body Mass Index" is the criteria settled for determination of such co-relation. This Index is the person's body weight divided by a settled square of his/her height and that is to be calculated by dividing total weight from a cubic of height. As per Body Mass Index the prescribed, height/weight chart for Indian men and women from the height of 5"2' to 6"3' is as under:- Height in Feet/Inches Men (in Kgs) Women (in Kgs) 5'3" 57.6 to 61.7 54.4to 58.1 5'4" 58.9 to 63.5 56.3 to 59.9 5'5" 60.8 to 65.3 57.6 to 61.2 5'6" 62.2 to 66.7 58.9 to 63.5 5'7" 64.0 to 68.5 60.8 to 65.3 5'8" 65.8 to 70.8 62.2 to 66.7 5'9" 67.6 to 72.6 64.0 to 68.5 5'10" 69.4 to 74.4 65.8 to 70.3 5'11" 71.2 to 76.2 67.1 to 71.7 6'0" 73.0 to 78.5 68.5 to 73.9 6'1" 75.3 to 80.7 - 6'2" 77.6 to 83.5 - 6'3" 79.8 to 85.7 - 10. Looking to the chart above, if the criteria of maximum weight as given under the Rules of 2002 be executed, then the person fittest shall not be a person above the height of 5'6" or all other persons in scientific terms shall not be physically perfect to drive a motor vehicle. In view of the scientific criteria, the prescription of maximum weight limit without taking into consideration height of the aspirant to be considered for appointment as Driver is highly laconic and irrational. The condition impugned, as a matter of fact excludes a better physically fit persons and includes the persons who may be either underweight (if the height is more than 5'6'') and overweight (if the height is less than 5'6''). The condition impugned, as a matter of fact excludes a better physically fit persons and includes the persons who may be either underweight (if the height is more than 5'6'') and overweight (if the height is less than 5'6''). In view of it, we are having no doubt that the prescription of maximum weight without prescribing minimum height to be considered for appointment as Driver is not appropriate to determine physical fitness. The Clause impugned suffers from irrationality and also lack reasonability, hence, deserves to be declared illegal. 11. While arriving at the conclusion as above, we would like to state that the process of selection initiated under the advertisement dated 10.10.2014 has been concluded, appointments to the selected persons have already been given and the petitioners challenged the condition given therein after participating in the process of selection, therefore, it shall not be appropriate to disturb the selections already made. 12. Accordingly, these petitions for writ are allowed in-part. Clause 31 of the order issued by Hon'ble the Chief Justice as per Rule 7 of the Rules, 2002 is declared illegal to the extent it provides 65 Kilogram of weight as the maximum weight required to be possessed by a person desirous to be considered for appointment as Driver. The respondents are at liberty to provide necessary criteria to assess physical fitness that is required to be possessed by a person desirous to be considered for appointment as Driver under the Rules of 2002 by taking into consideration all physical fitness factors including height and weight required and while doing so, the criteria of "Body Mass Index" is required to be kept in mind. The petition is dismissed to the extent it claims for a writ, order or direction to quash the selections conducted under the advertisement dated 10.10.2014. 13. No order as to costs. Petition Partly Allowed.