//
you're reading...
legal issues

whether the qualifications prescribed in the Rajasthan Transport Subordinate Service Rules, 1963 (for short, “the Rules”) for the post of Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspector are mandatory and whether the petitioners, who were

Various European driver's licence classes

Image via Wikipedia

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.24020 OF 2011

 (Arising out of CC No.13191 of 2011)

Alka Ojha ... Petitioner(s)

 Versus

Rajasthan Public Service Commission and another ... Respondents

 With

 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS.24021-24023 OF 2011

 (Arising out of CC Nos.13504-13506 of 2011)

 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 21462 OF 2011

 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 22044 OF 2011

 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 23039 OF 2011

 O R D E R

1. The delay in filing SLP(C) CC Nos.13191 and 13504-13506 of 2011 

is condoned.

2. The questions which arise for consideration in these petitions are 

whether the qualifications prescribed in the Rajasthan Transport Subordinate 

Service Rules, 1963 (for short, "the Rules") for the post of Motor Vehicle 

Sub-Inspector are mandatory and whether the petitioners, who were 

 2

appointed as Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspectors in compliance of the direction 

given by the learned Single Judge of the High Court are entitled to continue 

in service despite reversal of the order of the learned Single judge by the 

Division Bench.

3. In response to advertisement dated 1.10.2001 issued by the Rajasthan 

Public Service Commission (for short, "the Commission"), the petitioners 

applied for appointment as Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspectors. The last date 

fixed for submission of the application was 19.11.2001. Although as on 

that date, none of the petitioners possessed driving licence authorising them 

to drive motor cycle, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger vehicles, all 

of them were provisionally allowed to take part in the written examination 

and the interview and their names were included in the select list prepared 

by the Commission. However, after final scrutiny of the papers the 

Commission cancelled the tentative selection of the petitioners on the 

ground that as on the last date fixed for submission of the application, they 

did not possess the required driving licence.

4. The writ petitions filed by the petitioners questioning the cancellation 

of their selection were allowed by the learned Single Judge, who referred to 

the qualifications specified in paragraph 13 of the advertisement and held 

 3

that when the requirement of the educational qualifications could be relaxed, 

there was no justification to deny appointment to the petitioners on the 

ground that they did not have the required driving licence on the last date 

fixed for submission of the application.

5. The special appeals filed by the Commission were admitted by the 

Division Bench of the High Court but its prayer for interim stay was rejected 

with an observation that if any appointment is made, the same will be 

subject to the decision of the appeal. For the sake of reference, the relevant 

portions of order dated 26.10.2004 passed in D.B. Civil Special Appeal 

(Writ) No.494 of 2004 are extracted below:

 "Heard learned counsel for the parties.

 Admit.

 Heard learned counsel for the parties on the stay application 

 also.

 Considering the submissions, no case is made out for stay.

 Consequently, the stay application stands rejected. However, it 

 is also made clear that if any appointment on the post of Motor 

 Vehicle Sub Inspector is made, that will be subject to the 

 decision of this appeal.

 List the appeal itself for hearing in the month of December, 

 2004, as prayed for." 

 4

6. When the special appeals were taken up for hearing, the Division 

Bench noticed that in R.P.S.C. v. Shri Manish Thakur another Division 

Bench had adversely commented upon the order of the learned Single Judge 

and referred the matter to the larger Bench for deciding the following 

question:

 "Whether as per the educational qualifications mentioned in 

 clause 13 of the advertisement, the driving licence and 

 experience should be possessed by the candidate on the last 

 date of filing the application or on or before the date of 

 interview?"

7. The Full Bench of the High Court referred to the relevant provisions 

of the Rules, the judgments of this Court in U.P. Public Service 

Commission, U.P. v. Alpana (1994) 2 SCC 723, Ashok Kumar Sharma v. 

Chander Shekhar (1997) 4 SCC 18 and held:

 ".....................In reference to aforesaid legal position, if 

 rules and advertisement are looked into, then it becomes clear 

 that so far as required educational eligibility is concerned, a 

 candidate appearing in last year examination or has already 

 appeared, can apply for selection, subject to possessing 

 educational certificates on or before the date of interview. 

 Thus, in view of the facts and legal position, the eligibility date 

 for educational qualification being provided not only under the 

 rules but also in advertisement, accordingly it has to be taken 

 the date of interview. So far as experience and driving licence 

 are concerned, it is provided under the heading of 

 "Qualification for Direct Recruitment", if schedule appended to 

 the Rules is looked into, however, contrary to statutory rules 

 heading given under Para 13 of advertisement is `educational 

 qualification'. In view of aforesaid, firstly it is only the 

 statutory rules and not the condition in the advertisement, will 

 govern the subject because anything contrary to statutory rules 

 5

 cannot be accepted or given effect to which ultimately violates 

 the statutory rules. This is only to clarify the confusion kept in 

 mind by candidates from heading of clause 13 of advertisement. 

 Since schedule provides heading "Qualification for Direct 

 Recruitment", which includes driving licence, experience and 

 educational qualification, thus there are 3 different 

 requirements for candidates to become eligible and out of 

 which for educational qualification, a separate cut off date has 

 been given under the rules as well as in the advertisement 

 whereas rules as well as advertisement are silent regarding cut 

 off date to possess experience and driving licence. As per legal 

 proposition referred above, it can be only the last date of 

 submission of application. Thus, in our view, Division Bench 

 of this Court in case of Rajasthan Public Service Commission 

 and another v. Shri Manish Thakur has rightly settled the issue. 

 It is, however, made clear that there can be different cut off 

 dates for eligibility criteria, which exist even if interpretation 

 given by learned counsel for parties are accepted. Under the 

 Rules of 1963, eligibility in regard to age is the first day of 

 January following the last date fixed for application. As against 

 cut off date of age, a different cut off date has been given for 

 other eligibility, thus it is not necessary that one and same cut 

 off date has to be provided for all eligibility.

 In view of aforesaid, our answer to reference is that as 

 per clause 13 of advertisement, driving licence and experience 

 are required to be possessed by the candidates on the last date 

 of submission of the application forms and not on or before the 

 date of interview."

 (emphasis supplied)

8. After the judgment of the Full Bench, the special appeals were placed 

before the Division Bench for final disposal. The Division Bench referred to 

the definitions of the terms `driving licence' and `learner's licence' 

contained in Section 2(10) and 2(19) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for 

short, "the Act"), order dated 20.5.2004 passed in D.B. Civil Special Appeal 

 6

No.252 of 2003 and held that the respondents (petitioners herein), who did 

not possess one of the prescribed qualifications i.e., the driving licence as on 

the last date fixed for submission of the application, were not eligible to be 

considered for selection. However, the Division Bench accepted the prayer 

made on behalf of the petitioners that they be allowed to participate in the 

process of fresh selection by providing relaxation in age and directed the 

Commission to complete the process of fresh selection within three months. 

The Division Bench also directed that for a period of three months status 

quo shall be maintained with regard to those who are in service. 

9. S/Shri P.P. Rao, S.P. Sharma, Colin Gonsalves and Rakesh K. 

Khanna, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that the 

High Court's interpretation of the qualifications specified in the Schedule 

appended to the Rules is erroneous and the petitioners were wrongly treated 

ineligible because on the date of interview they were having all the 

qualifications including the driving licence. Shri S.P. Sharma further argued 

that the requirement of having the driving licence cannot be treated as 

mandatory because the same is not imperative for discharging the duties of 

Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspector and the candidates who had obtained learner's 

licence before the last date fixed for submission of the application are 

entitled to be appointed because such licence authorised them to drive motor 

 7

cycle etc. Shri Rakesh K. Khanna supported the argument of Shri S.P. 

Sharma and pointed out as per the definition of `learner's licence', the 

licensee is authorised to drive a motor vehicle of the specified class or 

description. Shri Rakesh K. Khanna also produced xerox of the learner's 

licence of Sanjay Kumar (petitioner in SLP(C) No. 22044/2011) to show 

that by virtue of that licence, he was entitled to drive heavy goods vehicles. 

Shri P.P. Rao and other learned senior counsel then argued that even if this 

Court is inclined to approve the impugned judgment, the petitioners should 

be allowed to continue in service because the provisions contained in the 

Schedule appended to the Rules were vague and only after the judgment of 

the Full Bench, it became clear that for being treated eligible, the candidate 

must possess driving licence on the last date fixed for submission of the 

application. Learned counsel submitted that it will be extremely harsh for 

the petitioners to be thrown out of service after they have served for five 

years and have crossed the upper age limit prescribed for other posts. In the 

end, learned counsel submitted that the order of status quo passed by the 

Division Bench may be extended because the Commission has not been able 

to make fresh selection for the post of Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspector. 

10. On 19.8.2011, the Court had, while reserving order in SLP(C) 

Nos.21462, 22044 and 23039 of 2011 permitted the learned counsel for the 

 8

petitioners to furnish to the Court Master copies of the licence which their 

clients possessed on the date of application. Taking advantage of the liberty 

given by the Court, Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, learned counsel appearing for the 

petitioner in SLP(C) No. 21462/2011 made available photostat copies of the 

learner's licences (Annexures A-1 to A-3) issued to her client. Shri Nikilesh 

Ramachandran, learned counsel representing the petitioner in SLP(C) No. 

22044/2011 filed affidavit of his client along with xerox copy of learner's 

licence issued in his favour.

11. For deciding the questions framed in the opening paragraph of this 

order, it will be useful to notice Rule 11 and the relevant extracts of the 

Schedule appended to the Rules. The same are as under:

 "11. Academic and Technical qualifications. - A candidate 

 for direct recruitment to the post specified in the Schedule shall 

 possess (1) the qualification given in column 4 of the Schedule, 

 and (2) "Working knowledge of Hindi written in Devnagri 

 script and knowledge of Rajasthani culture."

 SCHEDULE

 Name of Source of Qualification Post from Minimum 

 Post Recruitment for Direct which experience 

 with recruitment appointment and qualifi-

 percentage by cations 

 promotion is required for 

 to be made promotion

 2. Motor 25% by 1. Must have 

 Vehicle promot- passed Secondary 

 Sub- ion 75% Examination of a 

 Inspector by recognized Board; 

 direct and 

 recruit-

 9

ment 3. A Diploma in 

 Automobile 

 Engineering (3 

 years' course) or 

 a diploma in 

 Mechanical 

 Engineering 

 awarded by the 

 State Board of 

 Technical 

 Examination (3 

 years' course)

 OR

 Any qualification 

 in either of the 

 above disciplines 

 declared 

 equivalent by the 

 Central 

 Government of 

 State Government; 

 and

 3. Working 

 experience of at 

 lest one year in a 

 reputed 

 Automobile 

 Workshop which 

 undertakes repairs 

 of both light 

 motor vehicle, 

 heavy goods 

 vehicles and 

 heavy passenger 

 motor vehicles 

 fitted with petrol 

 and diesel 

 engines; and

 4. Must hold a 

 driving licence 

 authorising him to 

 drive Motor cycle, 

 heavy goods 

 vehicles and 

 heavy passenger 

 10

 vehicles. Nothing 

 contained in this 

 Notification shall 

 apply to persons 

 whose names were 

 under 

 consideration for 

 appointment to the 

 post of Inspector 

 of Motor Vehicles 

 or Assistant 

 Inspector of Motor 

 Vehicles (by 

 whatever names 

 called by the State 

 Government prior 

 to first day of July, 

 1989 or to an 

 officer appointed 

 to such post before 

 the first day of 

 July, 1989 or to an 

 officer appointed 

 to discharge 

 functions of a non-

 technical nature."

 (emphasis supplied)

12. Paragraph 13 of the advertisement issued by the Commission, which 

is also relevant for deciding the issue raised by the petitioners reads thus:

 "13. Educational Qualification:-

 (A)(1) Passed Secondary Examination from any recognized 

 Board.

 (2) Awarded by the State Technical Education Board -

 Diploma in Automobile Engineering (3 years' course)

 Or

 Diploma in Mechanical Engineering (3 years' course)

 Or

 11

 Any qualification in either of the above disciplines 

 declared equivalent by the Central Government or State 

 Government; and 

 (3) Working experience of at least one year in a reputed 

 Automobile Workshop which undertakes repairs of both 

 light motor vehicles, heavy goods vehicles and heavy 

 passenger motor fitted with petrol and diesel engines; and

 (4) Must
 hold a driving licence authorizing him to drive 

 Motor Cycle, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger 

 vehicles.

 But, such candidate who appeared in the final year of the 

 course for such educational qualification sought for as 

 per the Rules or is going to appear in such examination, 

 will be eligible to submit application but he has to submit 

 the certificate passing the specified qualification before 

 the interview.

 (5) Working knowledge of Hindi written in Devnagri script 

 and the knowledge of the culture of Rajasthan."

 (emphasis supplied)

13. The use of word "shall" in Rule 11 makes it clear that the 

qualifications specified in the Schedule are mandatory and a candidate 

aspiring for appointment as Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspector by direct 

recruitment must possess those qualifications and must have working 

knowledge of Hindi written in Devnagri script and knowledge of Rajasthani 

culture. A conjoint reading of Rule 11, the relevant entries of the Schedule 

and paragraph 13 of the advertisement shows that a person who does not 

possess the prescribed educational and technical qualifications, working 

 12

experience and a driving licence authorizing him to drive motor cycle, heavy 

goods vehicles and heavy passenger vehicles cannot compete for the post of 

Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspector. 

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. In Bhupinderpal Singh 

v. State of Punjab (2000) 5 SCC 262, 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, Vizianagaram 

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, 

Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 168, 

U.P. Public Service Commission, U.P., Allahabad v. Alpana (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."

 13

 The same view was reiterated in M.A. Murthy v. State of 

Karnataka (2003) 7 SCC 517 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. Unfortunately, the learned Single Judge decided the writ petitions 

without even adverting to Rule 11, the relevant entries of the Schedule and 

paragraph 13 of the advertisement and issued direction which amounted to 

amendment of the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. This 

was clearly impermissible. Therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court 

rightly set aside the direction given by the learned Single Judge, which 

facilitated appointment of the petitioners despite the fact that they were not 

eligible to be considered for selection.

16. We may now deal with the argument of Shri S.P. Sharma and Shri 

Rakesh K. Khanna that the learner's licence possessed by the petitioners was 

sufficient to make them eligible for appointment as Motor Vehicle Sub-

Inspector. The definitions of `driving licence' and `learner's licence', as 

contained in Section 2(10) and 2(19) of the Act, read as under:

 14

 "2(10) "driving licence" means the licence issued by a 

 competent authority under Chapter II authorising the person 

 specified therein to drive, otherwise than as a learner, a motor 

 vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description

 2(19) "learner's licence" means the licence issued by a 

 competent authority under Chapter II authorising the person 

 specified therein to drive as a learner, a motor vehicle or a 

 motor vehicle of any specified class or description"

17. Sections 3, 8(1), (5) and (6), 9(1), (4), (5), (6) and (7) and 10 of the 

Act, which too have bearing on the decision of the question whether 

learner's licence is at par with driving licence and a person having learner's 

licence is eligible for appointment as Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspector under the 

Rules read as under: 

 "3. Necessity for driving licence. - (1) No person shall drive a 

 motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective 

 driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the 

 vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle other 

 than a motor cab or motor cycle hired for his own use or rented 

 under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of section 75 

 unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do.

 (2) The conditions subject to which sub-section (1) shall not 

 apply to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor 

 vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central 

 Government.

 8. Grant of learner's licence - (1) Any person who is not 

 disqualified under section 4 for driving a motor vehicle and 

 who is not for the time being disqualified for holding or 

 obtaining a driving licence may, subject to the provisions of 

 section 7, apply to the licensing authority having jurisdiction in 

 the area-

 15

 (i) in which he ordinarily resides or carries on business, 

 or

 (ii) in which the school or establishment referred to in 

 section 12 from where he intends to receive instruction in 

 driving a motor vehicle is situate,

for the issue to him of a learner's licence.

(5) No learner's licence shall be issued to any applicant 

unless he passes to the satisfaction of the licensing authority 

such test as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

(6) When an application has been duly made to the 

appropriate licensing authority and the applicant has satisfied 

such authority of his physical fitness under sub-section (3) and 

has passed to the satisfaction of the licensing authority the test 

referred to in sub-section (5), the licensing authority shall, 

subject to the provisions of section 7, issue the applicant a 

learner's licence unless the applicant is disqualified under 

section 4 for driving a motor vehicle or is for the time being 

disqualified for holding or obtaining a licence to drive a motor 

vehicle:

Provided that a licensing authority may issue a learner's licence 

to drive a motor cycle or a light motor vehicle notwithstanding 

that it is not the appropriate licensing authority, if such 

authority is satisfied that there is good reason for the applicant's 

inability to apply to the appropriate licensing authority.

9. Grant of driving licence. - (1) Any person who is not for 

the time being disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving 

licence may apply to the licensing authority having jurisdiction 

in the area - 

 (i) in which he ordinarily resides or carries on business, 

 or

 (ii) in which the school or establishment referred to in 

 section 12 from where he is receiving or has received 

 instruction in driving a motor vehicle is situated.

for the issue to him of a driving licence.

 16

(4) Where the application is for a licence to drive a transport 

vehicle, no such authorisation shall be granted to any applicant 

unless he possesses such minimum educational qualification as 

may be prescribed by the Central Government and a driving 

certificate issued by a school or establishment referred to in 

section 12.

(5) Where the applicant does not pass the test, he may be 

permitted to reappear for the test after a period of seven days:

Provided that where the applicant does not pass the test even 

after three appearances, he shall not be qualified to re-appear 

for such test before the expiry of a period of sixty days from the 

date of last such test.

(6) The test of competence to drive shall be carried out in a 

vehicle of the type to which the application refers:

Provided that a person who passed a test in driving a motor 

cycle with gear shall be deemed also to have passed a test in 

driving a motor cycle without gear.

(7) When any application has been duly made to the 

appropriate licensing authority and the applicant has satisfied 

such authority of his competence to drive, the licensing 

authority shall issue the applicant a driving licence unless the 

applicant is for the time being disqualified for holding or 

obtaining a driving licence:

Provided that a licensing authority may issue a driving licence 

to drive a motor cycle or a light motor vehicle notwithstanding 

that it is not the appropriate licensing authority, if the licensing 

authority is satisfied that there is good and sufficient reason for 

the applicant's inability to apply to the appropriate licensing 

authority:

Provided further that the licensing authority shall not issue a 

new driving licence to the applicant, if he had previously held a 

driving licence, unless it is satisfied that there is good and 

sufficient reason for his inability to obtain a duplicate copy of 

his former licence.

 17

 10. Form and contents of licences to drive. - (1) Every 

 learner's licence and driving licence, except a driving licence 

 issued under section 18, shall be in such form and shall contain 

 such information as may be prescribed by the Central 

 Government.

 (2) A learner's licence or, as the case may be, driving licence 

 shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor 

 vehicle of one or more of the following classes, namely:-

 (a) motor cycle without gear;

 (b) motor cycle with gear;

 (c) invalid carriage;

 (d) light motor vehicle;

 (e) transport vehicle;

 (i) road-roller;

 (j) motor vehicle of a specified description."

18. A reading of the two definitions brings out stark difference between 

the two types of licences. `Driving licence' issued by the competent 

authority under Chapter II authorises a person to drive a motor vehicle or a 

motor vehicle of any specified class or description otherwise than as a 

learner and `learner's licence' authorises a person specified therein to drive 

as a learner a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or 

description. It is thus evident that a person who is granted `learner's licence' 

is entitled to drive a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class 

or description only as a learner and he cannot be treated as a person to whom 

`driving licence' defined under Section 2(10) has been issued. Though, 

there is some similarity in the language of Section 8 which regulates the 

 18

grant of `learner's licence' and Section 9 which regulates the grant of 

`driving licence', the very fact that the legislature has thought it proper to 

make separate provisions for grant of two types of licences leads to an 

irresistible conclusion that a person holding `learner's licence' cannot be 

treated at par with a person having `driving licence' authorised to drive 

motor cycle, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passengers vehicles. Section 3 

of the Act, which is mandatory in character also lays down that a person 

shall not drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an 

effective driving licence. Surely, learner's licence cannot entitle a person to 

claim that he holds an effective driving licence. Therefore, the mere fact 

that the petitioners possessed learner's licence on the date of application was 

not sufficient to make them eligible to compete for selection.

19. The judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh 

(2004) 3 SCC 297 (paras 93 and 94) on which reliance was placed by Shri 

Rakesh K. Khanna has no bearing on the interpretation of Rule 11 read with 

the entries contained in the Schedule and it is not possible for this Court to 

rewrite the rule so as to enable the persons holding learner's licence to 

compete for appointment as Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspector.

 19

20. We shall now consider the question whether despite reversal of the 

order passed by the learned Single Judge by the Division Bench of the High 

Court, the petitioners can continue in service. The submission of the learned 

counsel that this Court should invoke Article 142 of the Constitution and 

direct the competent authority to allow the petitioners to continue in service 

because they have already completed more than 5 years' service sounds 

attractive but lacks merit. In our view, the power under Article 142 cannot 

be exercised for conferring legitimacy to the appointment of the petitioners, 

who, as held hereinabove, were not eligible to be considered for selection. 

The Commission had provisionally allowed the petitioners to take part in the 

written test and the interview, but their tentative selection was cancelled 

because at the stage of final scrutiny, it was found that they did not possess 

one of the prescribed qualifications i.e. driving licence authorising them to 

drive motor cycle, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger vehicles. 

Notwithstanding this, the competent authority was compelled to appoint the 

petitioners because while entertaining the special appeals, the Division 

Bench of the High Court declined to stay the direction given by the learned 

Single Judge. If the course suggested by the learned counsel for the 

petitioners is adopted, then every illegal appointment will get regularized by 

judicial fiat and those who are eligible and more meritorious will be 

deprived of their constitutional right to be fairly considered for selection and 

 20

appointment against the advertised posts. The judgments of this Court in 

Dr. M.S. Mudhol v. S.D. Halegkar (1993) 3 SCC 591, Rekha Chaturvedi 

v. University of Rajasthan (supra), Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of 

Punjab (supra) and other similar judgments cannot be pressed into service 

for issuing a direction for the petitioners' continuance in service because in 

those cases, the selection and/or appointments were made otherwise than by 

judicial intervention and this Court held that the candidate should not suffer 

due to the fault of the public authorities.

21. A half-hearted attempt was made by Shri Rakesh K. Khanna, learned 

counsel appearing for the petitioner in SLP(C) No.22044 of 2011 to draw 

solace from the last line contained in order dated 29.6.2011 passed by the 

Division Bench of the High Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) 

No.494 of 2004 wherein it was observed that the question of regularisation 

has to be considered by the RPSC/State Government. In this context, it is 

sufficient to observe that there is no provision in the Rules under which the 

Commission or the State Government can regularise the appointment of a 

person, who was not eligible to compete for selection. 

22. In the result, the special leave petitions are dismissed. However, 

keeping in view the statement of the learned senior counsel appearing for the 

 21

petitioners that the Commission has not completed the process of selection 

for fresh recruitment of Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspectors, we direct the 

Commission to do the needful within a period of next 4 months. Till then, 

the petitioners shall be allowed to continue in service. The Secretary of the 

Commission shall send a report to the High Court about compliance of the 

directions given by the Division Bench and this Court for completing the 

process of selection.

23. It is needless to say that the order of status quo passed by the High 

Court and the direction given by this Court for the petitioners' continuance 

in service will not enure to their advantage and the Commission shall make 

selection without being influenced by those orders.

24. Copies of this order be sent to the Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service 

Commission, Ajmer and Transport Commissioner, Rajasthan, Jaipur by fax.

 ........ ........................J

 (G.S. Singhvi)

 ........ ........................J

 (H.L. Dattu)

New DelhiAugust 25, 2011.

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,886,951 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: