Kerala High Court
Biju K.S vs The Kerala Public Service Commission on 15 July, 2010
Author: C.K.Abdul Rehim
Bench: C.K.Abdul Rehim
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/27TH ASWINA 1934
WP(C).No. 18011 of 2012 (B)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------------------
1. BIJU K.S,
S/O. SEKHARAN, AGED 38 YEARS, KOTTAKUNNEL VEEDU
MUTTILAYAM.P.O, WAYANAD - 670 731.
2. BIJU JACOB
S/O. JACOB, AGED 34 YEARS, OLICKAMALIL
KUPPADY.P.O., BATHERY, WAYANAD - 673 592.
BY ADVS.SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY
SMT.SEEMA
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------------------
1. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.
2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER,
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, WAYANAD
WAYANAD DISTRICT.
3. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
TRANSORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695 023.
R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
R3 BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA, SC, KSRTC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-10-2012,
ALONG WITH WPC. 6094/2012 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mn
...2/-
WP(C).No. 18011 of 2012 (B)
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT-P1- TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE GAZETTE
NOTIFICATION DATED 15/07/2010
EXHIBIT-P2- TRUE COPY OF THE DRIVING LICENCE PARTICULARS OF THE IST
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT-P3- TRUE COPY OF THE PREVIOUS AND PRESNT LICENCE OF IST
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT-P4- TRUE COPY OF THE DRIVING LICENCE PARTICULARS OF 2ND
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT-P5- TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION RECEIVED BY THE IST PETITIONER
DATED NIL.
EXHIBIT-P6- TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION RECEIVED FOR PRACTICAL TEST
(H TEST AND ROAD TEST) BY THE IST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT-P7- TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION RECEIVED FOR PRACTICAL TEST ROAD
TEST BY THE IST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT-P8- TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION RECEIVED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER
FOR PRACTICAL TEST (H TEST + ROAD TEST).
EXHIBIT-P9- TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION RECEIVED BY THD 2ND PETITIONER
FOR PRACTICAL TEST (ROAD TEST).
EXHIBIT-P10- TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET ISSUED TO THE IST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT-P11- TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET ISSUED TO 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT-P12- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE RECEIVED BY THE IST PETITIONER FROM
THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 14/06/2012.
EXHIBIT-P12(a)-TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANLSATION OF EXHIBIT-P12
EXHIBIT-P13- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE RECEIVED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED
14/06/2012.
EXHIBIT-P13(a)- TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT-P13
EXHIBIT-P14- TRUE COPY OF THE RECTIFICATION NOTIFICATION DATED 15/11/2010
EXHIBIT-P14(a)- TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANLSATION OF EXIT-P14.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
Mn
"CR"
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.
-------------------------------------------------
W.P.(c) Nos. 18011, 6094, 10777,
10217, 14336, 19893, 20084
& 15811 OF 2012
-------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2012
J U D G M E N T
Subject matter involved in these writ petitions pertains to rejection of candidature for direct recruitment to the post of 'Reserve Drivers' in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC). The selection process started when Public Service Commission (PSC) published Notification dated 15.7.2010 inviting applications. The reason for rejection of candidature in all these cases is that, the petitioners were not holding valid heavy vehicle Driving Licences as on the last date prescribed for receipt of applications, as on the date of practical test, and as on the date of interview. Even though factual matrix pertaining to validity of licence in each case differs to certain extent, the basic issues common in all these cases need be decided. Therefore all these cases are considered together and W.P.(c) Nos.18011/2012 and conn. cases -2- disposed of through this common judgment. However, it is proposed to render separate conclusions based on distinct facts in each of the cases, after deciding the common issues.
2. In the Notification issued by PSC (Exhibit P1 produced in many of the cases) one among the qualification prescribed is as follows:
"Driving licence issued after 16.1.1979 must have endorsements both for heavy goods and heavy passengers vehicle and application having licence with only one endorsement will be summarily rejected (vide amendment No.47/7B) to the Motor Vehicles Act). The driving licence should be a current one on the date of application." (emphasis supplied) The last date for receipt of applications fixed under the Notification was 18.8.2010. Petitioners in these cases applied on different dates, within the last date prescribed. Selection process include different stages such as, physical measurement and certificate verification, practical W.P.(c) Nos.18011/2012 and conn. cases -3- test (H test + Road test) and written test. In some of the cases the applications were rejected through letters issued by PSC mentioning the reason that as on the last date stipulated for receipt of applications those candidates were not holding valid driving licences. In some other cases the petitioners were not allowed to participate in the practical test, either in the 'H-Test' or in the 'Road Test', on the ground that they were not holding valid licences as on the date of such test. In many of the cases where the petitioners were not permitted to participate in the practical test and written test, this Court had issued interim directions for their provisional participation either in the practical test or in the written test. But the results with respect to those candidates are not published.
3. Grounds raised against rejection of candidature are many folded. One of the main controversy is as to whether the candidates should possess valid licence as on the last date prescribed for receipt of applications, as on the W.P.(c) Nos.18011/2012 and conn. cases -4- date of practical test, and as on the date of interview. Stand taken by the PSC is that, the candidates should have possessed valid licences as on all the three dates. According to PSC, such an insistence was made through an Erratum Notification issued on 13.10.2010. The petitioners in all these cases, except in WP(C) Nos. 14336 of 2012, 1077 of 2012, 15811 of 2012 and 19893 of 2012, are challenging sustainability of the Erratum Notification. Eventhough in most of the cases there is no prayer as such to quash the Erratum Notification, I am of the view that a decision on this point is essential in order to resolve the main controversy.
4. Even with respect to contents of the 'Erratum Notification' there is inconsistency. Copies of the Kerala Gazette Extra Ordinary, dated 15th November, 2010, both in English and Malayalam are produced for my perusal. Both will indicate that the conditions stipulated in Clause 7(1) of the original Notification that, "The driving license should be W.P.(c) Nos.18011/2012 and conn. cases -5- a current one on the date of application" stands corrected. The corrected version in the Gazette Notification published in English is reproduced below:
"Candidates shall possess Current Driving Licence on the last date for receipt of application/practical test/interview"
The above quoted portion contained in the Gazette notification published in the Malayalam is as follows:
")gFc^7^VE_5{af? hdAU_"7m h\XXX_Hm %gIf Xb`5x_AaK %UX^H D`OD_O_\a", %gD^f?^M" dI^gO^7_5 Ix`f/'aVUcb .K_U H?AaK XNOJa" dI^L\cNaI^O_x_gAID^Cm".
While interpreting the newly introduced clause, counsel for the petitioners in some of the cases contended that the 'slashes' contained in the English version is clearly indicative of the fact that the insistence is only with respect to any one of the three dates. They have relied on the interpretation given for 'slash' in the website 'Wikipedia'. It indicates that the use of 'slash' is an substitute for 'or'. They also contended that, even going by the Malayalam W.P.(c) Nos.18011/2012 and conn. cases -6- version the interpretation can only be that the insistence is only with respect to any one of the three dates. On the other hand Sri.P.C.Saseedharan, learned Standing Counsel for PSC contended that, in the 'Erratum Notification' it is unequivocally clear that the candidates should possess valid licences as on all the three dates.
5. Before attempting to resolve the above controversy, I am persuaded to consider another basic issue regarding competence of the PSC to publish an 'Erratum Notification' effecting changes in the prescribed qualifications, after starting the selection process. Contention on behalf of the petitioners is that, any changes in the matter of qualification, method of appointment, age or other conditions of recruitment, introduced after issuance of the notification for selection cannot be sustained. In this regard, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.20084 of 2012 had relied on a clarification issued by the State Government, on 27.6.1987 (Ext.P12 in that case). In W.P.(c) Nos.18011/2012 and conn. cases -7- the said circular, on the basis of a request made by the PSC, Government have clarified that any changes in qualification, method of appointment, age or other conditions of recruitment, introduced by the PSC after issue of the Notification for selection to any post, will be given effect only in future selections, except in cases where the changes announced amount to concessions or exemptions to which persons already included in the ranked list as well as prospective candidates will be entitled and only in cases where the changes are of such minor nature. Pointing out that the qualifications prescribed under the original notification insist only for possessing a valid licence as on the date of application, it is contended that the changes made through the Erratum Notification will clearly amount to changes in the conditions for selection, which cannot be made after the selection process has started.
6. Settled legal precedents are to the extent that there cannot be any change in the 'rule of the game' after W.P.(c) Nos.18011/2012 and conn. cases -8- the 'game' has started. It is reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a Bench decision in K.Manjusree V. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another [(2008) 3 SCC 512] that, if the selection committee wants to prescribe minimum marks for interview, it should done so before commencement of the selection process. If the selection committee prescribes minimum marks only for the written examination before commencement of the selection process, it cannot either during the selection process or after the selection process add an additional requirement that the candidate should also secure minimum marks in the interview. Changing of criteria after completion of the selection process was held to be illegal. In holding the dictum the Hon'ble Supreme Court had relied on its previous decisions in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Others V. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve and Others [(2001) 10 SCC 51]. In the said case the hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- W.P.(c) Nos.18011/2012 and conn. cases -9-
"The Rules of the game, meaning thereby, that the criteria for selection cannot be altered by the authorities concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has commenced"
In yet another old decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in Durgacharan Misra V. State of Orissa (1987) 5 SCC 646 the hon'ble apex court held that the Commission had no power to prescribe minimum marks for the viva-voce test, since the Rules does not prescribe any minimum qualifying marks to be secured in the viva-voce for the purpose of selection. The principle being that the Commission has not authorised to make any deviation from the qualification or conditions prescribed by the Board.
7. In a latest decision, a Full Bench of this court in Udayan V. Kerala Agro Machinery Corporation Limited (2011 (3) KLT 952) (FB), while considering the issue as to whether the recruiting agency has got power to deviate from the qualifications prescribed in the notification issued for the purpose of recruitment, it was observed that W.P.(c) Nos.18011/2012 and conn. cases -10- the Public Service Commission is not vested with any power to deviate from the qualifications prescribed in the notification for the purpose of recruitment. The Court observed that, once certain norms are indicated in the notification for selection, those norms should be strictly followed. The recruiting agency/appointing authority can, for administrative reasons prescribe norms or evolve a methodology to narrow down the zone of consideration by prescribing cut off marks, years of experience etc. if there is possibility that there may be large number of aspirants for the post. But once the norms or qualifications are notified they will have to be strictly adhered to. The underlying principle is that there shall be no room for any arbitrariness, favouritism, nepotism etc., and the process of selection must be open, fair and wholly untainted in any manner whatsoever.
8. Going by the settled legal position as enumerated in the above cited decisions, which are binding on this W.P.(c) Nos.18011/2012 and conn. cases -11- court, there cannot be any dispute that the Public Service Commission was not entitled to effect any changes with respect to qualification, method of appointment or other conditions for recruitment, after issuance of the notification for selection. In the present case, the Notification was dated 15-7-2010. The last date stipulated for receipt of applications was on 18-08-2010. The 'Erratum Notification' is dated 13-10-2010 and it was published in the Gazette only on 15-11-2010. Evidently, the Erratum Notification was issued after the last date stipulated for receipt of applications. Learned standing counsel for Public Service Commission contended that the Erratum notification was issued before commencement of the selection process. But as noticed in the preceding paragraphs, the settled legal position is that the commission cannot alter conditions of recruitment after publication of the notification for selection. In Udayan's case (cited Supra) the Full Bench of this court observed that once certain norms are indicated in W.P.(c) Nos.18011/2012 and conn. cases -12- the notification for selection, those norms should be strictly followed. The recruiting agency is not vested with any power to deviate from the qualifications prescribed in the notification published for the purpose of recruitment. Therefore I am of the view that the process of selection has started by publication of the original notification and by inviting of applications. Any change after the original notification cannot be sustained, that too one which is brought in after the last date stipulated for receipt of applications.
9. Counsel appearing for petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos. 15811/12, 19893/2012 and 14336/12 raised contentions to the effect that the Erratum Notification can be treated as valid in view of the Government clarification dated 27.06.1985, mentioned herein above. According to them the changes brought in will come within the ambit of the exempted categories mentioned in the said clarification, because the changes brought in are only concessions or W.P.(c) Nos.18011/2012 and conn. cases -13- exemptions to which the prospective candidates will be entitled. According to them, by virtue of the changes brought in, those who were not possessing valid licences as on the last date prescribed for receipt of applications can also be permitted to participate in the selection process if they hold valid licences either as on the date of practical test or as on the date of interview. First of all such a contention cannot be accepted because of the controversy regarding interpretation of the contents of the Erratum Notification. Even if this court takes the view on the said aspect in favour of petitioners in those cases, holding that the 'slashes' contained in the Erratum Notification can be interpreted as 'or', validity of the Erratum Notification cannot be uphold. This is because of the fact that the original notification contained only a requirement for possessing current licence as on the date of application.
10. It is a basic proposition that with respect to all recruitments the eligibility/qualification of the candidates W.P.(c) Nos.18011/2012 and conn. cases -14- need be considered as on the date of application. In other words the normal rule of recruitment is that the candidates should possess the required qualification as on the date of application. In the case at hand the recruitment is to the post of 'Reserve Driver' in KSRTC. A person holding a valid heavy vehicle driving licence as on the date of submission of application is qualified to be considered for selection. If the validity/currency of the licence expires thereafter during the selection process, he cannot be held as disqualified. Further, at any rate the appointment will be made only if the person is holding a valid licence as on the date of appointment. Even during the career of his employment the person will be assigned duty of driving only if he continue to hold a renewed licence, in case the licence expire in between. Therefore it is not a sensible proposition that all the applicant should possess licences having validity through out the period of selection process.
11. In the case at hand the condition contained in the W.P.(c) Nos.18011/2012 and conn. cases -15- original notification was altered by insisting that the candidates should possess current licences on subsequent dates, apart from the date of submission of the applications. Such change in the condition cannot be considered in any manner as a concession or exemption granted in favour of the candidates. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the Erratum Notification published after commencement of the selection process cannot be sustained. In the result, I hold that those candidates who were possessing valid Heavy Driving Licences as on the date of submission of their applications are entitled to be considered in the selection process.
12. Yet another common issue raised is with respect to validity of expired Driving Licences. Various contentions are raised on behalf of petitioners, referring to section 14 and 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section 14 deals with currency of licences. Sub section (2) prescribes different periods of validity with respect to different class of W.P.(c) Nos.18011/2012 and conn. cases -16- licences. The last proviso under sub section (2) of section 14 reads as follows:-
"Provided that every driving licence shall notwithstanding its expiry under this sub section, continue to be effective for a period of 30 days from such expiry."
13. Contention in some cases is that, even if validity of the licences stood expired as on the crucial dates, they are liable to be considered for selection because those crucial dates are within 30 days of expiry of such licences. Learned counsel for the petitioner in WP (C) No.19893/2012 had placed much reliance on Section 15, which deals with renewal of driving licenses. The procedure indicated in sub section (1) of section 15 is that in case where application for renewal is made after 30 days from the date of expiry, driving licences shall be renewed only with effect from the date of its renewal. It indicates that, if the application for renewal is made within 30 days of expiry, it has to be renewed with continuity and without any break. Referring W.P.(c) Nos.18011/2012 and conn. cases -17- to the second proviso of sub section (4) of Section 15, learned counsel contended that mere expiry of the licence will not affect its validity, because the officials are bound to renew the licences if it is applied within 5 years of such expiry. The 2nd proviso of section 15(4) reads as follows:-
" Provided further that if the application is made more than 5 years after the driving licence has ceased to be effective, the licencing authority may refuse to renew the driving licence, unless the applicant undergoes and passes to its satisfaction the test of competence to drive referred to in sub section (3) of section 9."
On a reading of the proviso to section 14(2) in harmony with section 15(1), it is evident that the driving licence will continue to be effective for a period of 30 days from the date of expiry and it can be renewed with retrospective effect if such renewal is applied within the said period of 30 days.
14. This court had occasion to consider effect of W.P.(c) Nos.18011/2012 and conn. cases -18- section 14 and 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in the decision in Public Service Commission Vs. Biju (2008(2) KLT
380). A Division Bench of this court observed that, contentions of the PSC that the provisions in the Motor Vehicles Act will operate only for the purpose of insurance matters, is totally untenable. This court observed that there is no restriction in section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the driving licence will remain effective and valid for all purposes under law for a period of one month even after date of expiry of the same. Referring to the facts of that case it was observed that, the application submitted to PSC should be entertained and teated as valid because the licence in question was valid within the period of 30 days contemplated under section 14(2). In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Vs. Kali (2005 (2) KLT
490) another Division Bench held that, the driving licence need to be treated as valid for a period of 30 days from the date of its expiry on the basis of the proviso to section 14(2). W.P.(c) Nos.18011/2012 and conn. cases -19- In yet another decision in Rohini Vs. Kumaran (2006 (2) KLT 8) a learned Judge of this court observed that relevance of the 30 days period provided in the proviso to section 15 (1) lies on the proviso contained in section 14(2) regarding continued effect of driving licence for a period of 30 days after its expiry. Therefore merely because the renewal was made after 30 days of expiry of licence, it cannot be said that the validity of the licence ceases to effect before 30 days period prescribed under proviso to section 14(2). It is held that driving licence will be effective and valid for a period of 30 days after the date of expiry. But with respect to the renewal, if the application is made within 30 days, it will be valid and effective as on the date of expiry, once it is renewed. On the other hand if the application for renewal is made after the expiry of 30 days from the date shown in the licence, the renewal can be given only with effect from the date of the renewal, is the findings.
W.P.(c) Nos.18011/2012 and conn. cases -20-
15. Contention raised on the basis of the last proviso to section 15(4) that any expired licence will be valid for a period of 5 years cannot be accepted. The said proviso only enable the authority to reject the renewal if the application is made after a period of 5 years, insisting upon the applicant to undergo and pass tests of competence. But the said provision cannot be interpreted in any manner as one enabling validation of expired licence for a period of 5 years. Therefore in view of the settled legal position, I am of the view that the candidates for selection should possess either a valid licence as on the date of submission of applications or they should possess a licence which had expired within 30 days of such date.
16. On the basis of the general issues decided as above, merit of each case need be examined and conclusions should be arrived separately. Therefore each writ petition is dealt hereinafter separately; W.P.(c) Nos.18011/2012 and conn. cases -21- (i) WP(C) No. 18011/2012
There are two petitioners in this case. Validity of their licences expired on 22-07-2010 and 30-07-2010 respectively. According to the petitioners they submitted applications on 20-07-2010, when the licences were valid. Considering the proviso to Section 14 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act their licences were valid till 22-08-2010 and 30-08-2010 respectively. It is evident that the licences were renewed subsequently. As on the date of submission of application both the petitioners were holding valid licences. Further, as on the last date prescribed for receipt of applications also their licences can be deemed as valid in view of Section 14 (2). Therefore the petitioners are eligible to be considered for selection if they were otherwise qualified and if they became successful in the selection process.
(ii) WP(C) No. 6094/2012
The Petitioner's licence remained suspended for the W.P.(c) Nos.18011/2012 and conn. cases -22- period from 12-10-2011 to 11-04-2012. Rejection of the candidature was on the ground that as on the date of practical test he was not holding a valid licence. In view of the legal position declared hereinabove, as on the date prescribed for submission of applications the licence remained valid. Hence the petitioner is eligible for selection if he is otherwise qualified and if he became successful in the selection process.
Challenges raised against the validity of suspension effected, is left open for agitation in appropriate proceedings or in any further writ petitions to be filed, if so advised.
(iii) WP(C) No. 10777/2012
In this case the licence expired on 12-07-2010. The petitioner submitted application on 21-07-2010. Going by the proviso to Section 14 (2) of Motor Vehicles Act, the licence remained valid upto 12-08-2010. Therefore as on the alleged date of submission of application the licence W.P.(c) Nos.18011/2012 and conn. cases -23- was valid. It is evident that he got the licence renewed on 17-09-2010. Contention of the PSC is that licence remained not valid as on the last date stipulated for receipt of application. But if the petitioner had submitted the application on any date prior to 12.08.2010, he is eligible to be considered for selection. Therefore the petitioner is eligible for selection if he is otherwise qualified and if he became successful in the selection process. (iv) WP(C) No. 10217/2012
Licence of the petitioner expired on 11-07-2010. Petitioner submitted application on 20-07-2010. Considering the proviso to Section 14 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act the licence can be held as valid till 11-08-2010. The rejection of the candidature on the basis that his licence was not valid as on the last date stipulated for receipt of applications. But, since the licence was valid as on the alleged date of submission of application, the petitioner is eligible to be considered for selection. Therefore the W.P.(c) Nos.18011/2012 and conn. cases -24- petitioner will be eligible, if he is otherwise qualified and if he became successful in the selection process. (v) WP(C) No. 14336/2012
Licence of the petitioner expired on 27-09-2009 and it was renewed only on 23-08-2011. Therefore as on the date of notification and as on the last date for receipt of application the petitioner was not holding any valid licence. The petitioner relies on the Erratum Notification to content that as on the date of practical test the licence was renewed and therefore he was eligible. But in view of the findings contained hereinabove, benefit of the Erratum Notification cannot be extended. Therefore the writ petition is hereby dismissed.
(vi) WP(C) No. 19893/2012
Licence of the petitioner expired on 19-02-2010 and it was renewed only on 24-02-2011. As on the alleged date of submission of application and as on the last date stipulated for receipt of application there was no valid licence. Hence W.P.(c) Nos.18011/2012 and conn. cases -25- in view of the decision arrived above the petitioner was not eligible and therefore the writ petition is dismissed. (vii) WP(C) No. 20084/2012
Licence of the petitioner expired on 07-08-2010. His alleged date of submission of application was 26-07-2010. The licence was subsequently renewed on 01-10-2010. Going by the proviso to Section 14 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act the licence was valid upto 07-09-2010. Therefore as on the alleged date of submission of application and as on the last date stipulated for receipt of application he was holding valid licence. Further it is evident that his licence was renewed as on the date of practical test. Hence the petitioner is eligible for consideration in the selection process, if he is otherwise qualified and if he became successful in the selection process.
(viii) WP(C) No. 15811/2012
The licence of the petitioner expired on 09-01-2008 and it was got renewed only on 09-03-2011. As on the W.P.(c) Nos.18011/2012 and conn. cases -26- alleged date of submission of application or as on the last date stipulated for receipt of applications there was no valid licence. The petitioner relies on the Erratum Notification to content that as on the date of practical test the licence was renewed. But in view of the findings contained hereinabove the petitioner is not eligible. Hence the writ petition is dismissed.
17. It is brought to my notice that many of the petitioners in these cases were permitted to undergo practical test and written test by virtue of interim orders of this court. Hence the PSC is hereby directed to consider case of the petitioners declared as eligible for consideration depending on result of the tests in which they were permitted to participate. It is made clear that with respect to those petitioners who were not allowed to participate in the practical test shall also be considered for selection, after conducting fresh practical test if necessary, provided they became successful in other tests including the written W.P.(c) Nos.18011/2012 and conn. cases -27- test. The PSC is hereby directed to take the needful steps to finalise selection in the case of eligible petitioners, at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this this judgment.
Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
PMN/AMG True copy P.A to Judge