Madras High Court
A. Maniyara Manickam vs The Tamil Nadu State Transport ... on 17 August, 1999
Equivalent citations: (1999)3MLJ384
ORDER T. Meenakumari, J.
1. The writ petition is for the issue of writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to continue to participate in the interview and selection process conducted in pursuance of the communication No. 13761/Niya-11/Ma.G.II/97, dated 1.9.1997 issued by the respondent including practical test or driving the vehicle holding that the petitioner is holding a valid licence to drive a Heavy Passenger Motor Vehicle as per the endorsement No. 396/87, dated 12.11.1987 made in his Driving Licence Book bearing serial Number 674/83 and eligible to participate in the interview conducted by the respondent.
2. The case of the petitioner is that with a view to obtain a light motor vehicle licence, he applied for the same after obtaining learner's licence through a driving school. The driving licence to drive light motor vehicle was issued to the petitioner on 16.4.1983 by the Assistant Licencing Authority, Tuticorin. His driving licence No. is 674/83. The petitioner has obtained an endorsement to drive heavy passenger motor vehicle driving licence with effect from 12.11.1987. The case of the petitioner is that the said endorsement has been made in the licence book. The petitioner seems to have worked as a driver in several places including the Kattabomman Transport Corporation, Tuticorin. When the respondent has called for applications to appoint Drivers through Employment Exchange, the petitioner's name has been sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The petitioner was asked to attend an interview on 13.8.1997 and the petitioner has also attend the interview. The respondent refused to allow the petitioner to go for the driving test on the ground that the petitioner has obtained driving licence at the age of 17 years and 11 months. In spite of several attempts made by the petitioner to convince the respondent that at the time of interview he was 31 years and eligible to hold a Heavy Passenger Motor Vehicle licence, the respondent has refused to allow him for the driving test. Aggrieved by the action of the respondent, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
3. While ordering notice of motion, this Court on 30.8.1997 passed the following order:
The respondent is directed to conduct interview for the petitioner and keep the result in abeyance and report within two weeks. Keep one seat vacant.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has obtained a driving licence to drive the light motor vehicles with effect from 16.4.1983. However there was an endorsement made by the licensing authority that he is entitled to drive the heavy motor vehicles with effect from 12.11.1987. As he was below 18 years, he was given the licence to drive the light motor vehicles. The endorsement of the licensing authority itself shows that he is entitled to drive heavy passenger motor vehicles with effect from 12.11.1987 by which time he had completed 21 years. Subsequently, the licence has been renewed from time to time and the licence was valid upto 15.4.1998. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that as per Section 4 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 a person who crossed the age of 16 years is entitled to drive a motor cycle without gear. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Motor Vehicles Act reads that subject to the provisions of Section 18, no person under the age of twenty years shall drive a transport vehicle in any public place. Section 7 imposes restrictions on the granting of learner's licences for certain vehicles. Section 19 of the Act empowers the licensing authority to disqualify from holding a driving licence or revoke such licence. Emphasising the provisions of Section 19, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner's licence is a valid licence as he has not been disqualified or his licence has been revoked by the concerned authorities. According to the petitioner, the respondent cannot deny him the appointment only on the ground that his original licence is in violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.
5. The respondent has filed their counter. Learned Counsel for the respondent has produced the records which shows that in pursuance of the directions of this Court, training test has been conducted on 20.11.1997 and the petitioner has passed the test. Mr. Sanjay Mohan, learned Counsel for the respondent has argued that the case of the petitioner could not be considered as the licence he obtained was in violation of the provisions of Section 4 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He has argued that a person shall not drive a vehicle under the age of 18 years and even though there was an endorsement on the driving licence that the petitioner is entitled to drive heavy motor passenger vehicle with effect from 12.11.1987 he was not considered.
6. Proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Motor Vehicles Act reads that a person who has attained the age of 16 years can drive a motor cycle without gear in a public place. In this case, the petitioner has obtained the licence to drive the light motor vehicles in the year 1983. At that time his age was 17. As on 12.11.1987, he was 21 years and from that date, he is entitled to drive heavy motor passenger vehicles. More so his licence was not cancelled or revoked by the concerned authorities. The petitioner's licence has been renewed on 15.4.1995 which was valid upto 15.4.1998.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Kerala High Court wherein a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 315, 361 and 362 of 1975, 1976 Ker. L.J. (S.N.) 135, has held as follows:
It is clear from Sections 7 and 11 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 read with Form B that the renewal of a licence really takes effect as a fresh grant. That being so, even assuming that there was some infirmity at the time of the original licence, the defect has been amply cured by the renewal obtained by the writ petitioners subsequent to their having obtained majority.
8. Even assuming that the petitioner has obtained the licence when he was a minor, subsequently, he renewed his licence and from 12.11.1987 he was entitled to drive heavy passenger vehicles. As on 12.11.1987 he became a major and an endorsement has been made in the licence book that he is entitled to drive heavy motor passenger vehicle. Hence, there is no force in the argument of the learned Counsels for the respondent that the petitioner could not be considered for appointment as he was a minor at the time of obtaining the original licence. The respondent should have considered the age of the petitioner as on the date of the interview and not on the date of obtaining of the original licence. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads that subject to the provisions of Section 18, no person under the age of twenty years shall drive a transport vehicle in any public place. Transport vehicle is defined in Sub-section (47) of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act which means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle. As per Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act, a person who completes the age of 20 years' is entitled to drive a transport vehicle in any public place. Section 18 deals with the driving licence to drive motor vehicles belonging to the Central Government and the provisions of Section 18 will not apply to the case of the petitioner.
9. In view of the above, it has to be held that the petitioner's licence is a valid licence as it was not either cancelled or revoked by the competent authority. The respondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioner on his representates for providing him an appointment in the respondent-Corporation as per rules, within four weeks from the date of receipt of representation. With the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P. No. 21423 of 1997 is closed.