Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Vikash vs Comm. Of Police on 5 February, 2026
1
Item No.31/ Court-IV O.A. No.3555/2016
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.3555/2016
M.A. No.219/2017
Order reserved on 27.01.2026
Order pronounced on 05.02.2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Vikash, Age- 25+ years, S/o Sh. Surender Singh, R/o-
Village & PO-Karawara Mankpur, Tehsil-Rewari,
District-Rewari, Haryana-123035
......Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Sachin Chauhan)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCTD through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of
NCTD, A-Wing, 5th Floor, Delhi Secretariat, New Delhi-
110113
2. The Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
3. The Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police, Recruitment
Cell, New Police Lines, Kingsway Camp, Delhi-11 0009
4. The District Transport Officer, Government of
Manipur, Office of the District Transport office, Versus
Ukhrul, Manipur-142
...Respondents
(By Advocates: Mr. Gyanendra Singh with Ms. Ring
Baliyan)
2026.02.05
SNEHA MEENA
17:23:20+05'30'
2
Item No.31/ Court-IV O.A. No.3555/2016
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J):
In the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:--
"(i) To quash & set aside the show cause notice dated 30.06.2016 and order dated 26.07.2016 whereby the candidature of applicant to the post of Constable (Driver) -
2012 has been cancelled and to further direct the respondents to conduct the reverification of applicant driving license No. 3085/UKL from DTO-Ukhrul-Manipur and if applicant driving license found to be genunine then to give the appointment to the post of Constable (Driver) with with all consequential benefit including pay & allowance and arrears thereof.
(ii) To direct the respondent No. 4 to bring all record/register in respect of applicant driving License No.3085/UKL. Or/and
(iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper and in the interest of justice may also be awarded to the applicant."
2. Brief facts of the case as narrated by the learned counsel for the applicant are as under:-
2.1 The applicant applied for the post of Constable (Driver)/Male in Delhi Police Examination-2012 pursuant to a recruitment process conducted by the respondents. He successfully cleared the written examination held on 11.11.2012, the result of which was declared on 17.12.2012, and was thereafter declared eligible to appear in the trade test. At all 2026.02.05 SNEHA MEENA 17:23:20+05'30' 3 Item No.31/ Court-IV O.A. No.3555/2016 stages of the recruitment process, the applicant furnished all requisite information and documents and did not conceal or misrepresent any material fact. 2.2 The applicant possessed a valid driving licence issued by the District Transport Authority, Ukhrul, Manipur, initially issued on 06.09.2011 for LMV, with endorsement for HMV w.e.f. 02.06.2012 to 01.06.2015, which was renewed from time to time. During verification, the respondents reported that the driving license could not initially be verified due to misplacement of records at the issuing authority, which was beyond the control of the applicant. 2.3 Subsequently, a show cause notice dated 30.06.2016 was issued to the applicant alleging discrepancies in the issuance of the driving licence.
The relevant portion of the said notice reads as under:
"Therefore, you are hereby called upon to show cause as to why your candidature for the post of Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police-2012 should not be cancelled for the reasons mentioned herein. Your reply, if any, should reach this office within 15 days from the date of receipt of this notice, failing which it will be presumed that you have nothing to say in your defence and the case will be decided ex-parte on merits."
2026.02.05 SNEHA MEENA 17:23:20+05'30' 4 Item No.31/ Court-IV O.A. No.3555/2016 2.4. Despite the applicant's bona fide efforts and representations explaining that the driving licence was genuine and duly supported by information obtained under the RTI Act, the respondents proceeded to cancel the applicant's candidature vide order dated 26.07.2016, the relevant portion of which reads as under:
"Your case was examined at Police Headquarters and it has been found that you had applied for the post on 28.06.2012. As per report of the Licensing Authority, you were issued driving licence for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) as well as Heavy Transport Vehicle (HTV) on the same date i.e. 02.06.2012, which violates the Motor Vehicles Act. Further, you mentioned in the application form that the driving licence was issued on 06.09.2011 having validity up to 01.06.2015, but in the present verification report there is no mention of such date. From the above facts, it appears that you have managed to procure the driving licence in connivance with the Licensing Authority, which cannot be accepted."
Accordingly, the show cause notice was decided ex-parte, and the applicant's candidature was cancelled, followed by rejection of his representation vide order dated 06.10.2016.
2.5 Aggrieved by the aforesaid actions, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing the present OA. 2026.02.05 SNEHA MEENA 17:23:20+05'30' 5 Item No. No.31/ Court-IV IV O.A. No.3555/2016 3555/2016 2.6 Learned counsel for the applicant further drew our attention to the proforma relied upon by the respondents which reads as under:-
under:
3. contra, learned Per contra earned counsel counsel for the respondents submitted that the present Original Application is devoid of merit and has been filed by the applicant after concealment and misrepresentation of material facts.
3.1 It is submitted that a recruitment notification was issued to fill up 752 vacancies for the post of Constable (Driver)/Male in Delhi Police and in response to the said recruitment notification, the applicant applied for the post in question under the OBC category.. The 2026.02.05 SNEHA MEENA 17:23:20+05'30' 6 Item No.31/ Court-IV O.A. No.3555/2016 applicant appeared in the written examination conducted on 11.11.2012, the result whereof was declared on 17.12.2012, and he was declared provisionally qualified for the Trade Test, subject to verification of eligibility conditions. 3.2 Learned counsel submitted that during scrutiny of the application form, particularly Column No. 12, the applicant declared that he possessed a Heavy Transport Vehicle (HTV) Driving Licence No. 3085/UKL, purportedly issued on 06.09.2011 by the Licensing Authority, Ukhrul, Manipur, and valid up to 01.06.2015. Since possession of a valid and genuine HTV driving licence was an essential eligibility condition, the said licence was sent for verification through an officer nominated by DCP/Special Branch, Delhi, who personally visited the District Transport Officer, Ukhrul (Manipur).
3.3 However, the District Transport Officer, Ukhrul, vide letter dated 22.02.2013 reported that the said driving licence could not be verified due to missing records. In view of the non-verification of the driving 2026.02.05 SNEHA MEENA 17:23:20+05'30' 7 Item No.31/ Court-IV O.A. No.3555/2016 licence, the applicant was not allowed to appear in the Trade Test.
3.4 Subsequently, upon the request of the applicant, the respondents again sought verification of the driving licence through official correspondence by post vide letter dated 21.08.2014, followed by reminders dated 28.10.2014, 30.03.2015, and 04.06.2015. Ultimately, the District Transport Officer, Ukhrul (Manipur), vide report dated 09.06.2015, received in the office of DCP/Recruitment, Delhi on 17.06.2015 (Annexure- R/2), intimated that the applicant had been issued Driving Licence No. 3085/UKL on 02.06.2012 for Motor Cycle/LMV as well as HTV/HMV, with validity of HTV/HMV from 02.06.2012 to 01.06.2015. 3.5 Learned counsel submitted that upon examination, the said verification report was found untenable and legally impermissible, as issuance of driving licences for Motor Cycle/LMV and HTV/HMV on the same date is in clear violation of the Motor Vehicles Act. Further, it was noticed that the applicant had applied for the post on 28.06.2012, whereas the verification report stated issuance of the HTV licence 2026.02.05 SNEHA MEENA 17:23:20+05'30' 8 Item No.31/ Court-IV O.A. No.3555/2016 only on 02.06.2012, contradicting the applicant's own declaration in the application form claiming issuance on 06.09.2011. The verification report dated 09.06.2015 also did not mention the earlier dates claimed by the applicant, thereby clearly indicating manipulation and procurement of the licence with possible connivance of officials of the concerned Transport Authority.
3.6 In view of these serious discrepancies and doubts regarding genuineness of the driving licence, the respondents, relying upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta v. United India Insurance Company Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269, wherein it has been held that an employer must be satisfied about the correctness and genuineness of the driving licence, decided to initiate action against the applicant.
3.7 Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice dated 30.06.2016 was issued by Addl. DCP/Recruitment, Delhi, proposing cancellation of the applicant's candidature and granting 15 days' time to submit his reply, clearly stipulating that failure to respond would 2026.02.05 SNEHA MEENA 17:23:20+05'30' 9 Item No.31/ Court-IV O.A. No.3555/2016 result in ex-parte decision. Despite service of the notice through Registered Post, the applicant failed to submit any reply within the stipulated period. 3.8 Consequently, the Show Cause Notice was decided ex-parte, and the candidature of the applicant for the post of Constable (Driver)/Male in Delhi Police Examination, 2012 was cancelled vide order dated 26.07.2016.
3.9 Thereafter, the applicant submitted a representation dated 04.09.2016, claiming that his LMV licence issued on 06.09.2011 was subsequently endorsed as HMV w.e.f. 02.06.2012, and further stating that the licence had been renewed from 26.06.2015 to 25.06.2018. The said representation was duly examined by the competent authority; however, the same could not be acceded to in view of the conclusive verification report and statutory violations. Accordingly, the applicant was informed vide Memorandum dated 06.10.2016.
3.10 Accordingly, learned counsel submitted that the Original Application is liable to be dismissed as the 2026.02.05 SNEHA MEENA 17:23:20+05'30' 10 Item No.31/ Court-IV O.A. No.3555/2016 respondents have acted strictly in accordance with rules, statutory provisions, and settled law.
4. In rejoinder to the arguments put forth by learned counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that it is a matter of record that in similar cases, the respondents themselves got re- verification of driving licences conducted through the Crime Branch for candidates whose licences were issued by Transport Authorities in Manipur, Mizoram, and Nagaland.
4.1 The applicant has annexed a list of such candidates, including Shiv Kumar, Amarjeet, Umesh Kumar, Anil Kumar, Rakesh Kumar, Balwan Singh, Mukesh Kumar, Jitender Singh, Yogender Singh, Suchender, and Vikas Singh, whose licences were re- verified and accepted despite initial discrepancies. 4.2 It is further submitted that the applicant obtained information under the RTI Act, 2005 from the DTO, Ukhrul, Manipur, which clearly confirms that the applicant's driving licence was issued on 06.09.2011, with HMV endorsement valid from 02.06.2012 to 2026.02.05 SNEHA MEENA 17:23:20+05'30' 11 Item No.31/ Court-IV O.A. No.3555/2016 01.06.2015, and subsequently renewed. The RTI information conclusively establishes the genuineness of the applicant's licence, and the same has been placed on record.
5. Heard learned counsel for both the parties at length.
6. ANALYSIS :
6.1 Verification of a driving licence is not confined merely to its genuineness, but necessarily extends to examining its validity as well.
6.2. In his representation dated 04.09.2016, submitted against the cancellation of his candidature for the post in question, the applicant pleaded that his driving licence No. 3085/UKL was originally issued on 06.09.2011 for LMV, and was subsequently endorsed for HMV with effect from 02.06.2012, having validity up to 01.06.2015.
6.3 The issue for consideration is whether the applicant possessed a valid HMV licence as on the cut-
off date prescribed in the application process. 2026.02.05 SNEHA MEENA 17:23:20+05'30' 12 Item No.31/ Court-IV O.A. No.3555/2016 Admittedly, neither party has placed on record any document specifically indicating the cut-off date. For the sake of analysis, if the date of declaration of the written examination result, i.e. 17.12.2012, is taken as the relevant date for possessing a valid HMV licence, it is not in dispute that the applicant held a valid LMV licence as on that date. However, the applicant was still required to establish that he possessed a valid HMV licence as on 17.12.2012.
6.4. Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently contended, in support of the applicant's claim, inter alia, the following:
(i) HMV Driving Licence No. 3085/UKL was issued on 06.09.2011 and was valid up to 01.06.2015.
(ii) In his representation dated 04.09.2016, submitted against the cancellation of his candidature, the applicant stated that Driving Licence No. 3085/UKL was initially issued on 06.09.2011 for LMV and was subsequently endorsed/converted to HMV with effect from 02.06.2012, having validity up to 01.06.2015 (hereinafter referred to, for the sake of convenience, as 2026.02.05 SNEHA MEENA 17:23:20+05'30' 13 Item No. No.31/ Court-IV IV O.A. No.3555/2016 3555/2016 the 'questionable licence' or 'Licence-A').
'Licence . The image of the same is reproduced below:
(iii) Learned counsel further supplemented applicant's claim by stating that a Smart Card Driving Licence was issued to the applicant, bearing an endorsement for HMV,, stated to have been issued on 06.09.2011 and valid up to 15.10.2020 (hereinafter referred to, for the sake of convenience, as the 'valid licence' or 'Licence 'Licence-
B'), which is as under:
2026.02.05 SNEHA MEENA 17:23:20+05'30' 14 Item No.31/ Court-IV O.A. No.3555/2016 6.5 If the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant are accepted, it would necessarily imply that the applicant was in possession of licences for both LMV and HMV as on 06.09.2011. Such a proposition, however, runs contrary to the scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Rules framed thereunder governing the grant of HMV/transport vehicle licences.
To adjudicate upon the issue arising for consideration, it is apposite to advert to the statutory framework under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Motor Vehicles Rules, which clearly draw a distinction between 'Light Motor Vehicles' and 'Transport Vehicles'. Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act mandates the necessity of holding a driving licence to drive a motor vehicle. The latter part of the provision categorically stipulates that no person shall drive a transport vehicle unless his driving licence specifically entitles him to do so. The express reference to 'transport vehicle' in Section 3 indicates that a licence issued for a 'light motor vehicle' cannot, by itself, be used for driving a 'transport vehicle'. Further, by virtue of the amendment introduced in 1994, Section 10 of the Act merged four 2026.02.05 SNEHA MEENA 17:23:20+05'30' 15 Item No.31/ Court-IV O.A. No.3555/2016 distinct classes, namely: (i) medium goods vehicle, (ii) medium passenger vehicle, (iii) heavy goods vehicle, and (iv) heavy passenger vehicle, into a single category of 'transport vehicle' under Section 10(2)(e). In contrast, Section 10(2)(d) provides for a separate and distinct class of 'Light Motor Vehicle'. The statutory scheme, therefore, clearly treats LMV and HMV/transport vehicles as distinct classes requiring specific authorisation.
6.6 The eligibility for obtaining a license for HMV/transport vehicles is more stringent than that for Light Motor Vehicles. Since transport vehicles are primarily utilized for carrying passengers and goods, the additional requirements are essential for ensuring road safety.
"Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Chapter II Section 7 -- Restrictions on the granting of learner's licences for certain vehicles
1. No person shall be granted a learner's licence to drive a transport vehicle unless he has held a driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle for a period of at least one year.
2. No person under the age of eighteen years shall be granted a learner's licence to drive a 2026.02.05 SNEHA MEENA 17:23:20+05'30' 16 Item No.31/ Court-IV O.A. No.3555/2016 motorcycle without gear, except with the consent in writing of the person having the care of the person desirous of obtaining the learner's licence."
6.7 Thus, even to qualify for the grant of a learner's licence to drive a 'transport vehicle' (to be read as HMV/'Transport'), Section 7(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act stipulates that a candidate must have held a valid driving licence for a 'Light Motor Vehicle' for a minimum period of one year. Further, Section 8(3) mandates that an applicant seeking a learner's licence for a transport vehicle must submit a medical certificate issued by a registered medical practitioner certifying the applicant's physical fitness to drive a transport vehicle. Such a requirement does not exist in the case of a Light Motor Vehicle, where a self- declaration alone is sufficient. Additionally, the second proviso to Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that a medical certificate is also mandatory for the renewal of a driving licence for 'transport vehicles'. Section 9(4) further requires that an applicant for a 'transport vehicle' driving licence must possess a driving certificate issued by a recognised driving school or establishment.
2026.02.05 SNEHA MEENA 17:23:20+05'30' 17 Item No.31/ Court-IV O.A. No.3555/2016 6.8. The statutory timeline, i.e., the restriction on the grant of a learner's licence for HMV, mandates that a person must have held a driving licence for a Light Motor Vehicle for at least one year before being eligible to obtain a learner's licence for a transport vehicle. This requirement under Section 7(1) is absent in the present case. Consequently, both LMV and HMV licences could not have been issued on the same date, i.e., 06.09.2011, as the applicant could not have fulfilled the basic prerequisite of holding an LMV licence or even a learner's licence for HMV as of 02.06.2012, which was less than one year later. Accordingly, Licence 'A' and the tick-mark endorsement thereto, covering the complete category of vehicles, i.e., Motor Cycle without gear, Motor Cycle with gear, Light Motor Vehicle, Medium Goods Vehicle, Medium Passenger Vehicle, Heavy Goods Vehicle, Heavy Passenger Motor Vehicle, and Auto Rickshaw/Tractor, were missing in the first verification conducted by the respondents. The sole reliance on RTI information is therefore based on incomplete data, which cannot be given conclusive weight in the facts of the present case. 2026.02.05 SNEHA MEENA 17:23:20+05'30' 18 Item No.31/ Court-IV O.A. No.3555/2016 It is also noteworthy that, as of the date of reserving the decision, even Licence 'B' indicated a validity for 'Trans' only up to 15.10.2020.
6.9. In Alka Ojha v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Another, reported in 2011 (9) SCC 438, it was held as under:
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.
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 2026.02.05 SNEHA MEENA 17:23:20+05'30' 19 Item No.31/ Court-IV O.A. No.3555/2016 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 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."
6.10 In matters of selection and recruitment, the burden of proof always rests upon the candidate to establish, through cogent and valid documents, that he or she fulfills all requisite eligibility conditions. In the present case, neither in the pleadings nor elsewhere 2026.02.05 SNEHA MEENA 17:23:20+05'30' 20 Item No.31/ Court-IV O.A. No.3555/2016 has the applicant provided the date of application for a learner's licence for HMV, or even the date of applying for the HMV/Trans licence.
7. CONCLUSION :
7.1. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the present OA and the same is accordingly dismissed.
7.2. Pending M.A.(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/sm/as/
2026.02.05
SNEHA MEENA
17:23:20+05'30'