SUDEESH T BALARAMAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext. P7 and seeking a declaration that "insistance of qualification to drive heavy goods vehicles, heavy passenger vehicles as on the last date of application to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector for appointment as per Ext. P1 notification is illegal and also that the rejection of Ext. P6 work experience as paid trainee for appointment to the above post is illegal". By Ext. P7, his application to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector was rejected on the ground that he did not possess driving licence to drive heavy vehicles and that he did not have work experience as required in Ext. P2 notification.

(2.) Ext. P1 is the notification issued by the Public Service Commission inviting applications to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, a category in Kerala Transport Subordinate Service governed by the Special Rules for the said service. R.4(b) of the Special Rules provides for the minimum qualification for direct recruitment to the post as follows:

(3.) The petitioner submits that based on the Note in the Special Rules as extracted above, one need not possess the motor driving licence to drive heavy vehicles at the time of application or even at the time of selection and that he need acquire that licence only during the period of probation. But, the petitioner omits that the Note is applicable only "in the absence of candidates possessing Motor Driving Licence with endorsement of eligibility for driving Heavy Passenger Motor Vehicles and Heavy Goods Vehicles". The petitioner has no case that there is absence of candidates possessing licence to drive heavy vehicles. In the absence of that, the petitioner cannot seek shelter under the 'Note'. When the Public Service Commission has rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that he did not possess driving licence to drive Heavy Vehicles, it shall be taken that there are sufficient qualified hands in terms of the Rule, possessing such licence. So, the petitioner's application was rightly rejected.