Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Manish Thakur vs Rajasthan Public Service Commission ... on 31 July, 2003
Equivalent citations: RLW2004(1)RAJ220, 2004(1)WLC260
JUDGMENT Sunil Kumar Garg, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondents on 28.11.2002 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dtd. 26.11.2002 (Annex. 7) passed by the respondent No, 2 (Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission) by which the petitioner was not allowed to appear in the interview for appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector on the ground that the permanent driving licence (Annex. 4) dtd. 30.4.2002 was issued to the petitioner after submission of last date of application form i.e. 19.11.2001, be quashed and set aside and further the respondents be directed to call the petitioner for interview for the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector and appoint him on the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector, if he is otherwise found suitable.
2. The facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under:
i) That the petitioner passed the Secondary Examination in the year 1990 from the Board of Secondary Examination. Thereafter the petitioner passed Senior Secondary Examination in the year 1992 from the Board of Secondary Examination. Thereafter the petitioner obtained Diploma in Mechanical Engineering from the Board of Technical Education in the year 1995-96. Copies of mark- sheets of Secondary, Sr. Secondary and Diploma in Mechanical Engineering are marked as ANNEX. 1 collectively.
ii) Further case of the petitioner is that after obtaining diploma in mechanical engineering, the petitioner worked for more than one year with many workshops where repairing of Light Motor Vehicle etc. were done. Some of the certificates issued by the authorized persons of the workshops are marked as ANNEX. 2 collectively.
iii) Further case of the petitioner is that on 1.10.2001, the petitioner was issued a learning licence (Annex. 3) by the Regional Transport Officer, Udaipur for driving heavy goods vehicle as well as Heavy Passenger Vehicles.
iv) Further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was granted permanent driving licence (Annex. 4) on 30.4.2002 by the Regional Transport Officer, Udaipur.
v) Further case of the petitioner is that on 31.10.2001, the respondent-Commission issued an advertisement (Annex. 5) inviting applications for appointment on 101 posts of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspectors and the last date of submitting the application form was 19.11.2001.
vi) Further case of the petitioner is that appointment to the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector is governed by the Rajasthan Transport Sub Ordinate Service Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1963).
vii) Further case of the petitioner is that as the petitioner was having requisite qualification and was eligible for appointment on the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector, the petitioner submitted his candidature for appointment on the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector to the respondents and the respondents permitted the petitioner to take up the written examination with the Roll No. 100508. Petitioner appeared in the written test and was declared successful by the respondents.
viii) Further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was issued an interview letter dtd, 1.11.2002 (Annex. 6) by respondent No. 2 (Secretary, Rajasthan 'Public Service Commission) directing him to appear in the interview to be held on 26.11.2002.
ix) Further case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of interview letter dtd. 1.11.2002 (Annex. 6) issued by respondent No. 2 (Secretary Rajasthan Public Service Commission), the petitioner appeared for interview on 26.11.2002 in the office of respondent-Commission.' However, after verification of the documents, the petitioner's candidature was rejected vide letter dtd. 26.11.2002 (Annex. 7) issued by the respondent No. 2 (Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission) on the ground that on the last date of submission of application form i.e. 19.11.2001, the petitioner was not having permanent driving licence and therefore, he was not having requisite qualification on the last date of submission of application form i.e. 19.11.2001. In this writ petition, the letter dtd. 26.11.2002 (Annex. 7) passed by respondent No. 2 (Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission) has been challenged on various grounds.
3. In this writ petition, the main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was having all requisite qualifications of appointment on the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector except the permanent driving licence, but he was having learning licence dtd. 1.10.2001 (Annex. 3) and that is why his application form was accepted by the respondents and when he was called for interview vide letter dtd. 1.11.2002 (Annex. 6) to be held on 26.11.2002, prior to that on 30.4.2002, the petitioner was granted permanent driving licence (Annex. 4) and therefore, rejection of candidature of the petitioner vide letter dtd. 26.11.2002 (Annex. 7) issued by respondent No. 2 (Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission) on the ground that he was not having permanent driving licence on the last date of submission of application form i.e. 19.11.2001 is absolutely illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and hence this writ petition should be allowed.
4. Reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and their case is that since on the last date of submission of application i.e. 19.11.2001, the petitioner was not having permanent driving licence, therefore, his candidature was rightly rejected vide letter dtd. 26.11.2002 (Annex. 7) and hence no case is made out and the writ petition should be dismissed.
5. Heard and perused the record.
6. Admitted position of this case may be summarized in the following manner:
i) That the petitioner applied for appointment on the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector in pursuance of advertisement dtd. 31.10.2001 (Annex. 5).
ii) That the last date of submission of application form was 19.11.2001.
iii) That the application form of the petitioner was accepted by the respondents.
iv) That in the advertisement dtd. 31.10.2001 (Annex. 5), it was mentioned that a candidate must have permanent driving licence for driving heavy vehicle, on the last date of submission of application form i.e. 19.11.2001.
v) That on 19.11.2001 i.e. last date of submission of application form, the petitioner was having learning driving licence dtd. 1.10.2001 (Annex. 3) and not permanent driving licence.
vi) That on 30.4.2002, the petitioner was granted permanent driving licence (Annex. 4).
vii) That the petitioner was called for interview vide interview letter dtd. 1.11,2002 to be held on 26.11.2002 and at the time of interview, the petitioner was having permanent driving licence dtd. 30.4.2002 (Annex. 4).
7. Now the question which arises for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the candidature of the petitioner was rightly rejected by the respondent No. 2 (Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission) vide .letter dtd. 26.11.2002 (Annex. 7) or not.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma and Anr. v. Chander Shekhar and Anr. (1), has held that educational qualifications fulfilled on the date of interview could be taken into consideration and the fulfillment of educational qualifications on the date of submission of application form was not necessary, but later on the view expressed in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma (Supra) was not found proper by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in the review petition filed in the above case of Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar (Supra), was reversed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide judgment dtd. 10.3.97 and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the view taken in the above judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma (Supra), was unsustainable and amounted to clear error of law apparent on the face of record. This review judgment is Ashok Kumar Sharma and Anr. v. Chander Shekhar and Anr (2). Thus, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the review judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma (Supra), was that the qualifications are to be seen as on the date of advertisement and not on the date of interview.
9. This Court in the case of Man Singh v. State of Rajasthan (3), while placing reliance on review judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar (Supra), has also taken the same view that the qualifications are to be seen on the date of advertisement and not on the date of interview.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Vijay Kumar Mishra (4), has further observed that the applicant who does not possess the prescribed qualification for the post at the time of submission of application or by the cut off date, if any, described under the Rules or stated in the advertisement, is not eligible to be considered for such post and the qualification acquired by him subsequently does not entitle the applicant to come within the zone of consideration and he cannot be considered for appointment in absence of any power in appointing authority to relax the qualification.
11. Thus, it can be concluded that a candidate who does not possess requisite qualification on the last date of submission of application form, is not entitled to be considered for appointment and the suitability and eligibility has to be considered with reference to the last date of submission of application form and not on the date of interview.
12. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, on strict legal ground, the candidature of the petitioner was rightly rejected by the respondent No. 2 (Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission) vide letter dtd. 26.11.2002 (Annex. 7) as on the last date of submitting application form, the petitioner was having learning driving licence (Annex. 3) dtd. 1.10.2001 though in due course of time, before the date of interview i.e. 26.11.2002, the petitioner was granted permanent driving licence (Annex. 4) on 30.4,2002.
CASE OF THE PETITIONER ON EQUITABLE GROUNDS
13. Now the next question which arises for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case just mentioned above, the relief sought for by the petitioner, though not permissible to the petitioner on strict legal grounds, can be granted to him on equitable grounds or not.
14. Before proceeding further, it may be stated here that so far as the educational qualifications are concerned, the petitioner was having all such qualifications on the date when he submitted his application form. No doubt, in the advertisement dtd. 31.10.2001 (Annex. 5) it was mentioned that a candidate should have permanent driving licence for driving heavy vehicle, but on the date of submission of application form, the petitioner was having learning driving licence dtd. 1.10.2001 (Annex. 3) and he was granted permanent driving licence on 30.4.2002 (Annex. 4) and on 26.11.2002 when he was called for interview, on that day, he was having permanent driving licence (Annex. 4) dtd. 30.4.2002.
15. In the facts and circumstances just mentioned above, no doubt as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma (Supra), State of U.P. v. Vijay Kumar (Supra), the petitioner was not legally entitled for appointment on the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector as on the last date* of submission of application form i.e. 19.11.2001, the petitioner was not having permanent driving licence. However, looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this condition should have been relaxed and can be relaxed on the following grounds:
i) That on the last date of submission of application form i.e. 19.11.2001, the petitioner was having learned licence dtd. 1.10.2001 (Annex. 3).
ii) That before interview on 26.11.2002, the petitioner was granted permanent driving licence on 30.4.2002 (Annex. 4) by the Regional Transport Officer, Udaipur.
iii) In the application form submitted by the petitioner pursuant to advertisement dtd. 31.10.2001 (Annex. 5), it was mentioned by the petitioner that he was having learning driving licence dtd. 1.10.2001 (Annex. 3) and inspite of that the petitioner was allowed to appear in the written test and was declared successful and thereafter he was called for interview vide interview letter dtd. 1.11.2002 (Annex. 6) to be conducted on 26.11.2002.
iv) That on 26.11.2002, when the interview of the petitioner was going to be conducted, the petitioner was having permanent driving licence (Annex. 4) which was granted to the petitioner on 30.4.2002.
16. In my considered opinion, if the case of the petitioner is examined from equitable considerations, it comes within the zone of equity and rejection of candidature of the petitioner on the ground that he was not having permanent driving licence (Annex. 4) on 19.11.2001 does not appear to be reasonable and it was a fit case where condition of having permanent driving licence as on 19.11.2001 should have been relaxed.
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Cf. Hadi Bandhu Rautarao v. State of Orissa (5), has held that in granting relief by issuing directions, the Court should weigh the equitable realities of the situation.
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shangrila Food Products Ltd. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India (6), has held as under:-
"It is well settled that the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution can take cognizance of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and pass appropriate orders to give the parties complete and substantial justice. This jurisdiction of the High Court, being extraordinary, is normally exercisable keeping in mind the principles of equity. One of the ends of the equity is to promote honesty and fair play."
19. Keeping the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Cf. Hadlbandhu Rautarao (Supra), Shangrila Food Products Ltd. (Supra), I am also clearly of the opinion, once the Court is satisfied that injustice has been done, then no restriction or rule can stand in the way of rendering Justice exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution.
20. The present case is a case where equity is in favour of the petitioner and he is entitled to the relief on the ground of equity and strict legal aspect of the matter would not come in his way and his candidature for the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector was wrongly rejected by the respondent No. 2 (Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission) vide letter dtd. 26.11.2002 (Annex. 7) because of the reasons mentioned just above in para 15 of this judgment.
21. Had the case would have been for acquiring educational qualification after submitting application form, the position would have been different one, but in the present case, the petitioner was having learning licence (Annex. 3) dtd. 1.10.2001 in place of permanent licence on the date of submission of application form meaning thereby that he was having learning driving licence (Annex. 3) dtd. 1.10.2001 on the date of submission of application form in place of permanent driving licence and was authorised to drive the vehicle and this aspect of the matter touches conscience of the Court as it appears that injustice has been done to the petitioner and thus the case of the petitioner comes within the zone of equity and he is entitled to get relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
22. For the reasons mentioned above, the letter dtd. 26.11.2002 (Annex. 7) issued by respondent No. 2 (Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission) whereby the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that on the last date of submission of application form i.e. 19.11.2001, the petitioner was not having permanent driving licence is liable to be quashed and set aside.
Accordingly the present writ petition is allowed on equitable grounds and the letter dtd. 26.11.2002 (Annex. 7) issued by respondent No. 2 (Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission) is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to call the petitioner for interview for the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector within a period of 2 months from today and to appoint the petitioner on the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector, if he is otherwise found suitable in all other respects.
No order as to costs.