Kerala High Court
Kerala Public Service Commission vs Sasikumar.S on 12 June, 2013
Author: K.Vinod Chandran
Bench: Manjula Chellur, K.Vinod Chandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:-
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
TUESDAY,THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/19TH BHADRA, 1935
W.A.No.1298 of 2013
---------------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 14313/2013, DATED 12-06-2013,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
------------------------
APPELLANTS/ RESPONDENTS:-
----------------------------------------------
1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE MEKALA OFFICER,
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
MEKALA OFFICE, KOLLAM.
BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN.
RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER:-
--------------------------------------------------
SASIKUMAR.S, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.SUKUMARAN NAIR,
MAANAPALLY,THURAVOOR SOUTH.P.O.,
CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688 532.
BY ADV. SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03-09-2013, THE COURT ON 10-09-2013 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
Manjula Chellur, C.J. &
K.Vinod Chandran, J.
------------------------------------
W.A.No.1298 of 2013
------------------------------------
Dated this, the 10th day of September, 2013
JUDGMENT
K.Vinod Chandran,J.:
The Kerala Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "PSC") is in appeal from the judgment of the learned Single Judge, setting aside the proposal to remove the respondent/writ petitioner's name from the rank list. The decision to remove the name of the respondent from the rank list was made since the respondent's Driving Licence expired during the selection process and was renewed only after three months. The finding of the learned Single Judge was that erratum notification was not applicable and that the requirement that the candidate has a current valid licence on the date of application was satisfied in the instant case. The PSC assails the same as against the binding precedents of this Court in W.A.No.951 of 2012, W.A.No.2274 of 2012 and the decision reported in Maheen v. State of Kerala [2013 (3) KLT 639].
W.A.No.1298 of 2013 - 2 -
2. The learned counsel for the respondent however, contends that this Court, in W.A.No.951 of 2012 and W.A.No.2274 of 2012, was concerned with instances where the applicants did not have a valid Driving Licence as on the date of application. Maheen (supra) was also sought to be distinguished by pointing out that in paragraph 4 the learned Judges have specifically noticed that in that case there was no challenge either to the notification issued by the Public Service Commission or to the relevant recruitment rules. In the instant case the respondent complied with Exhibit P1 notification, i.e., he had a current Driving Licence on the date of application, i.e., on 19.07.2010 when he preferred the application. The learned counsel for the respondent contends that his licence expired on 04.08.2010 and the last date of application as per Exhibit P1 was 18.08.2010 and if that had been the stipulation, he definitely would have got his licence renewed and then made the application. The learned counsel would also point out that even going by the erratum notification he had a valid licence on all the other specified dates as per the notification except the last date for application. There was no disqualification on the applicant for the reason that his licence expired on 04.08.2010 and was only renewed on 09.11.2010. Any W.A.No.1298 of 2013 - 3 - other interpretation, according to the learned counsel for the respondent, would be against what a reasonable prudent man would understand from the notification and would further do violence to the valuable rights conferred on the respondent under Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel very vehemently contends that this Court cannot take such an interpretation, especially in the context of that interpretation interfering with the valuable right of equal opportunity for employment guaranteed under the Constitution of India.
3. Though precedents have been placed before us, in view of the strenuous arguments placed by the respondent, we think it fit to dilate first on the facts. Exhibit P1 notification contains a stipulation that:
"The Driving Licence should be a current one on the date of application".
The respondent contends to have made the application on 19.07.2010 when he had a valid driving licence, which had been valid for the period 05.08.2007 to 04.08.2010. On expiry, admittedly, no application was made for renewal within the extended time provided under Section 15 of Chapter II of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for W.A.No.1298 of 2013 - 4 - brevity, "M.V.Act"). Section 15 of the M.V.Act permits the holder of a valid driving licence to make an application within thirty days of its expiry; upon which the renewal will be from the date of expiry. In the case of the respondent, the renewal was made only with effect from 09.11.2010 and between 04.08.2010 and 09.11.2010, the respondent had no valid current driving licence.
4. We would, for the moment and for the purpose of this case, ignore the erratum notification. We also notice that in W.A.No.2274 of 2012 we have found that the erratum notification, whether it be granting a concession or making the stipulation more rigorous, could not have been taken effect after the rank list was published. Though it was the strenuous argument of the learned counsel that if it was the intention of the PSC to provide for a current driving licence on the last date for receipt of application, then a further opportunity ought to have been granted before the last date for receiving the application; we do not think that the said contention arises for consideration at all, since we have already said that the erratum notification can neither make the conditions more rigorous nor relax it.
W.A.No.1298 of 2013 - 5 -
5. We are only concerned with the interpretation to be placed on the stipulation for a "current" driving licence in Exhibit P1. The distinction pointed out on the facts of Maheen (supra) that the petitioner therein did not have a Badge at the time of the proficiency test and there was no challenge to the notification issued by the PSC, according to us, is not at all significant. We notice the manner in which the declaration of law has been made in paragraph 5 of the said judgment:
"It is trite law that an applicant has to possess the prescribed qualification as on the last date fixed for the receipt of applications by the P.S.C. Such qualification that an applicant possesses, has to continue to run with that person during the selection process, to be continually carried at the selection, appointment, joining the service, and even while holding the post to which the incumbent was selected and appointed; that is, during the entire spectrum of employment from the last moment available to apply for being considered. This is a basic doctrine and salutary principle of law. That cannot be watered down to hold that an applicant for the post of Driver Grade-II (LDV), who ought to possess a driver's badge along with the driver's licence as on the date of application or the last date fixed for receipt of application, need not necessarily continue to possess the driver's badge on the date of the proficiency test.
This we say, not based on the interpretation of any provision of law applicable to driving of motor vehicles, but on the W.A.No.1298 of 2013 - 6 - indefeasible legal effect of the prescriptions and terms of the recruitment rules and the P.S.C.'s notification, over which the petitioner has no dispute. The action of the P.S.C. is in conformity with the prescriptions in the notification issued by it and the provisions in the recruitment rules, which, as already noted, are not under challenge. We do not find any legal infirmity in the action of the P.S.C."
6. We are of the definite opinion that the same applies on all fours to the facts of the instant case also. The contention now that if it was the intention of the Corporation that every applicant should have a current licence as on the last date of application, then the respondent ought to have been given an opportunity to cure the defect does not hold water. On a specific question put to the learned counsel as to whether an applicant who had a valid licence on the date of his application, which later expired, could take up a contention that he need renew it only before he was offered an appointment; the learned counsel answered in the negative. It is contended that in the instant case the respondent had the current driving licence at the time of his application. Looking at the facts, it is clear that though he had a valid driving licence on the date of his application, the respondent failed to apply for renewal within the time W.A.No.1298 of 2013 - 7 - stipulated as per the M.V.Act to see that the driving licence remained current throughout the selection process. By his own failure, a valid driving licence expired on 04.08.2010 and the respondent did not have a valid licence during three months till its renewal on 09.11.2010. The requirement that an applicant should have a current licence during the entire spectrum of his employment, as has been stated in Maheen (supra), persuades us to reject the contention of the respondent and approve that of the PSC. The current driving licence stipulated in Exhibit P1 notification has to be current and valid during the entire selection process and that is the only interpretation that can be given to a stipulation requiring current driving licence on the date of application. It postulates the currency to be maintained throughout.
7. With respect to the contention of equal opportunity for employment based on Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution, we can only notice that the same is not perpetrated by the PSC, as the disability has been visited on the respondent by reason of the default of the respondent in not validating the licence as prescribed in the M.V.Act. The respondent has only himself to blame for not being able to participate in the selection process and be considered. W.A.No.1298 of 2013 - 8 -
In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the learned Single Judge deserves to be reversed and we do so, allowing the appeal and dismissing the writ petition. The parties are left to suffer their costs.
Sd/-
Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice Sd/-
K.Vinod Chandran,
vku/ Judge.
( true copy)