LAWS(KER)-1994-11-80

BASHEER Vs. KERALA ASSISTANT MOTOR VEHICLES INSPECTORS ASSOCIATION

Decided On November 24, 1994
BASHEER Appellant
V/S
Kerala Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspectors Association Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common question that is involved in this batch of Writ appeals is the effect of Ext. P-4 notification issued by the Central Government under S.213 (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on the Kerala Transport Service Rules in force and the Kerala Transport Subordinate Service Rules. It is claimed by one set of people that after the Government of India prescribed the minimum qualifications under Ext. P-4 notification dated 12th June 1989, it is not open to the State Government to make appointments to the posts of Joint Regional Transport Officers, and Regional Transport Officers, if they do not have the minimum qualifications prescribed under Ext. P-4 notification. In effect they claim that making appointments and promotions to the posts of Regional Transport Officer and Joint Regional Transport Officer in accordance with the existing Special Rules for the Kerala Transport Services is illegal. Another set of people contend that even after Ext. P-4 notification which was duly amended on 24th June, 1991 it is perfectly legal to make appointments to the posts of Joint Regional Transport Officer and Regional Transport Officer from persons who satisfy the criterion prescribed under the Special Rules and who do not have the qualifications prescribed under Ext. P-4. It is claimed by them that Ext. P-4 prescribes the qualifications only for the posts of Motor Vehicle Inspector and Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector and the posts of Joint Regional Transport Officer and Regional transport Officer are not governed by Ex. P-4. The technically qualified employees on the other hand contend that the posts of Joint Regional Transport Officer and Regional Transport Officer involved duties of technical character and hence they are also posts for which the minimum qualifications prescribed under Ext. P-4 would apply as the Central Government has prescribed the minimum qualifications for the post of Inspector of Motor Vehicles" and under the Kerala Rules the Regional Transport Officer and Joint Regional Transport Officer along with the Motor Vehicle Inspectors and Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors come within the ambit of "Inspector of Motor Vehicles".

(2.) To understand the controversy in this batch of writ appeals, the relevant facts should be mentioned in brief. Prior to the coming into force of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 (Act 59 of 1988), the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 (Act 4 of 1939) was in force. The new Act came into force on 1st of July, 1989. Under the old Act of 1939 S.133 A dealt with appointment of Motor Vehicles Officers. Sub-S.(1) contemplated the State Governments establishing a Motor Vehicles Department and appointing officers there of such persons as it thinks fit sub-S. (3) contemplated the State Government making rules to regulate the discharge by officers of the Motor Vehicles Department of their functions. That section did not provide for the Central Government prescribing qualifications for the officers to be appointed to the Motor Vehicles Department. For the first time under the new Act in S.213 which corresponds to the old S.33A anew provision was introduced as S.213 (4) Under that sub-section, the Central Government was enabled to prescribe the minimum qualifications which the said officers or any class thereof shall possess for being appointed as such. Sub-S.(4) of S.213 reads as follows;

(3.) Soon after Ext. P-4 notification was issued by the Government of India, the Kerala Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspectors Association made representations to the State Government contending that in view of Ext. P-4 persons from the general service and the administrative service cannot be posted to the posts of Regional Transport Officer and Joint Regional Transport Officer and only persons having the technical qualifications as prescribed under Ext. P-4 should be appointed to these posts. When, the representations were not considered and when the representations did not get any results, they have come forward with O.P. No. 2169/91 seeking the reliefs that after Ext. P-4 notification no person who does not possess the qualifications prescribed under Ext. P-4 should be appointed to the class of posts designated as "Inspector of Motor Vehicles" and hence persons without technical qualifications cannot be appointed to the posts of Joint Regional Transport Officers and Regional Transport Officers, because they are also enjoined to perform the duties of registering authorities and licensing authorities which come within the ambit of Inspector of Motor Vehicles. A learned Single Judge disposed of the above original petition at the stage of admission on 14th March 1991. Considering the fact that the representations made by the Association on 4th August 1988 and 14th February 1991 were pending with the Government, the learned Single Judge was pleased to direct the State Government to pass final orders on Ext. P-4 and Ext. P-7 representations in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in the judgment expeditiously, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of the judgment. The learned Single Judge also directed the State Government to give an opportunity to the Association to represent its case before final orders are passed. The State Government after giving a personal hearing, considered Exts. P-4 and P-7 and then passed Ext. P-8 order dated 24th June 1991. The State Government, after referring to the various provisions of the Act and the rules and the legality of the Rules, did not accept the representations and it also came to the conclusion that reconsideration of the provisional promotions already made is not warranted. Accordingly, Ext. P-4 and Ext. P-7 representations in O.P. No. 2169 of 1991 were rejected. Aggrieved by Ext. P-8 order, O.P. No. 8345/91 was filed by the Association and one Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector. Several other persons filed different petitions and all those petitions were decided by a common judgment dated 23rd August 1994. Aggrieved by that judgment, the present appeals have been filed.