DIVAKARAN Vs. KERALA PUBLIC SERVIC COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent invited applications for the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors. Pursuant to the above notification the petitioner applied. But his application was rejected by Ext. P-8 on the ground that the petitioner did not satisfy the conditions stipulated in the notification. The petitioner was allowed to participate in the interview subject to further orders from this Court. The ranked list prepared pursuant to the interview shows that the petitioners result was withheld presumably due to the pendency of this Original Petition.

(2.) The qualification which the petitioner does not possess, according to the P.S.C. is a licence authorising him to operate Heavy Goods Vehicle and Heavy Passenger Vehicle as insisted in the notification.

(3.) Ext. P-9 licence issued by the Transport Authorities shows that the petitioner is having the authority to drive light transport vehicles, heavy transport vehicles and heavy motor vehicles. The above licence was issued on 24.6.1983. According to the petitioner, he fully satisfies the requirements of qualification mentioned in Ext. P-1 notification. In order to appreciate the above argument it is necessary to refer to the definitions of transport vehicle, goods carriage, Heavy goods vehicle and heavy passenger motor vehicle. The definitions of these vehicles as contained in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 were as follows: