Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1210 (RAJ)

Karani Singh v. Union of India

2019-04-24

ARUN BHANSALI

body2019
ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against rejection of his candidature for the post of HEMM Operator (Annexure-7) and seeking a direction to the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the merit penal of candidates against vacancies for the post of Dragline Operator (Annexure-8). 2. It is, inter alia, indicated in the writ petition that an Employment Notification dated 28.08.2018 (Annexure-1) was issued by Northern Coalfields Limited, inter alia, advertising various positions of Operator Trainees for operating highly automated and advanced Heavy Earth Moving Machines. Several positions, total 9 in numbers, were advertised. The common qualification for all the 9 positions indicated was valid HMV licence issued from any RTA/RTO of Indian States and in point 4 under note 2 it was indicated as under:- "4. The crucial date for determining the eligibility/suitability of a candidate for different posts as required under the Notification shall be the Closing Date for submission of Application Online by candidates." 3. The petitioner applied by way of online application on 24.09.2018 for the post of HEMM Operator (Trainee). 4. It is indicated in the writ petition that the driving licence to drive light motor vehicle was issued to the petitioner on 06.04.2015 and although the petitioner submitted application for issuance of licence to drive transport vehicle i.e. Heavy Motor Vehicle (HMV) on 05.08.2018, the same was issued by the competent authority on 11.10.2018 (Annexure-3). 5. The petitioner was issued admit card for appearing in the written test, wherein, he secured 22nd position in merit and was called for document verification, for which, the petitioner appeared on 25.02.2019. Whereafter, the list of rejected candidates was issued indicating the name of the petitioner with the reason that 'No valid HMV/Transport licence as on the cut-off date for assessing all eligibilities as prescribed in Notification i.e. 24.09.2018'. Whereafter a merit penal of candidates against vacancies was issued, wherein, on account of rejection (Annexure-7) the name of the petitioner was not included. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the stipulation in the advertisement indicating the closing date of submissions of application as the crucial date for determining the eligibility/suitability is not justified. Whereafter a merit penal of candidates against vacancies was issued, wherein, on account of rejection (Annexure-7) the name of the petitioner was not included. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the stipulation in the advertisement indicating the closing date of submissions of application as the crucial date for determining the eligibility/suitability is not justified. It is submitted that as per process of selection after candidate has passed written test, the eligibility based on documents are verified and, therefore, the crucial date should be the date of verification of the documents and not the last date of application. 7. Further submissions were made that petitioner had applied for HMV/Transport licence before the advertisement, however, the transport authority issued the licence on 11.10.2018 and, therefore, for no fault of petitioner his candidature has been rejected, which is not justified. It was prayed that the writ petition be allowed. 8. Reliance has been placed on judgment in Hemlata Meena v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B.C.W.P. No. 12118/2015, decided on 22.01.2019 by this Court at Jaipur Bench. 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 10. From a bare perusal of the indication made in the advertisement dated 28.08.2018 (Annexure-1), it is apparent that the respondents had indicated the crucial date for determining the eligibility/suitability of a candidate as the closing date for submissions of application online by the candidates. 11. Admittedly, in the present case the closing date for the application was 24.09.2018. A look at the application form of the petitioner Annexure-2 indicates that in the technical qualification, wherein, it was required of the petitioner to indicate regarding valid HMV licence issued from any RTO/RTA of Indian States without endorsement for Tractor driving, the petitioner indicated 'Yes'. However, the driving licence of the petitioner Annexure-3 indicates that the petitioner though was issued LMV licence on 06.04.2015, the endorsement regarding eligibility to drive transport vehicle has been made on 11.10.2018 and the validity of the said transport licence has been indicated upto 10.10.2021. However, the driving licence of the petitioner Annexure-3 indicates that the petitioner though was issued LMV licence on 06.04.2015, the endorsement regarding eligibility to drive transport vehicle has been made on 11.10.2018 and the validity of the said transport licence has been indicated upto 10.10.2021. Once admittedly the petitioner was not in possession of a valid driving licence entitling him to drive heavy motor vehicle/transport vehicle on the closing date i.e. 24.09.2018, the petitioner was not eligible as per the stipulation made in the advertisement and, therefore, the rejection of the petitioner's candidature apparently cannot be faulted. 12. The plea raised by the petitioner regarding his having applied before the cut off date and the licence having been issued after the cut off date is of no consequence, inasmuch as, the licence would be valid from the date of issuance and the same does not have any retrospective validity. The said aspect is fortified from the fact that the date of issuance of licence is 11.10.2018 and the same would be valid till 10.10.2021 and, therefore, the plea of retrospectivity has no substance. 13. The next contention raised by the petitioner regarding challenge to eligibility as on the last date of online application instead of date of document verification, also apparently has no substance as it is settled by various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court that in absence of any contrary stipulation, the date of eligibility is always the last date of filing of the application. 14. In Alka Ojha v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Ors., AIR 2011 SC 3547 in almost similar circumstances wherein the candidates did not possess the driving licence authorizing them to drive heavy goods vehicle and heavy passenger vehicle on the last date fixed for submission of application were provisionally allowed to take part in the written examination and the interview, however, after final scrutiny of the papers, the RPSC cancelled the tentative selection of the petitioners on the ground that as on the last date fixed for submissions of the application, they did not possess the required driving licence, they were not eligible, Hon'ble Supreme Court, inter alia, laid down as under:- "14. The question whether the candidate must have the prescribed educational and other qualifications as on the particular date specified in the Rule or the advertisement is no longer res integra. The question whether the candidate must have the prescribed educational and other qualifications as on the particular date specified in the Rule or the advertisement is no longer res integra. In Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab (2000) 5 SCC 262 : ( AIR 2000 SC 2011 : 2000 AIR SCW 1888), this Court referred to the earlier judgments in A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Sarat Chandra (1990) 2 SCC 669 , District Collector and Chairman, Vizimanagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi (1990) 3 SCC 655 , M.V. Nair (Dr.) v. Union of India (1993) 2 SCC 429 : (1993) AIR SCW 1412, Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 168, U.P. Public Service Commission, U.P., Allahabad v. Alpana, (1994 AIR SCW 2861) (supra) and Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar (supra) and approved the following proposition laid down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court: "...that the cut off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a public employment is the date appointed by the relevant service rules and if there be no cut off date appointed by the rules then such date as may be appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for applications and that if there be no such date appointed then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications have to be received by the competent authority." The same view was reiterated in M.A. Murthy v. State of Karnataka (2003) 7 SCC 517 : ( AIR 2003 SC 3821 : 2003 AIR SCW 4377) and Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India (2007) 4 SCC 54 . Therefore, the Full Bench of the High Court rightly held that a candidate who does not possess driving licence on the last date fixed for submission of the application is not eligible to be considered for selection." 15. The issue therefore stands squarely covered by the judgment in the case of Alka Ojha (supra). 16. Therefore, the Full Bench of the High Court rightly held that a candidate who does not possess driving licence on the last date fixed for submission of the application is not eligible to be considered for selection." 15. The issue therefore stands squarely covered by the judgment in the case of Alka Ojha (supra). 16. So far as reliance placed on judgment in Hemlata Meena (supra) is concerned, the said judgment has no application to the facts of the present case as in the said case the provisions specifically provided for the eligibility on or before the date of written examination or interview in terms of Rajasthan Various Service (Amendment) Rules, 1999, which is not the situation in the present case. 17. In view of the above discussion, the rejection of petitioner's candidature by the respondents for lack of eligibility on the last date of application cannot be faulted. 18. Consequently, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.