Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (1.50 seconds)Section 4 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Article 142 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Mrs. Rekha Chaturvedi vs University Of Rajasthan And Ors on 13 January, 1993
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 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
20
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.
Section 3 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
U.P. Public Service Commission vs Alpana on 17 January, 1994
(3) SCC 168,
U.P. Public Service Commission, U.P., Allahabad v. Alpana (supra) and
Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar (supra) and approved the
following proposition laid down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court:
Ashok Kumar Sonkar vs Union Of India & Others on 23 February, 2007
The same view was reiterated in M.A. Murthy v. State of
Karnataka (2003) 7 SCC 517 and Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of
India (2007) 4 SCC 54. Therefore, the Full Bench of the High Court rightly
held that a candidate who does not possess driving licence on the last date
fixed for submission of the application is not eligible to be considered for
selection.
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Swaran Singh & Ors on 5 January, 2004
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.