Delhi High Court
Rinku Kanjar vs Union Of India And Ors. on 15 April, 2025
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~33
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2468/2020
RINKU KANJAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. P. Sureshan, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 15.04.2025
C. HARI SHANKAR. J.
1. Pursuant to a notification issued by the Central Industrial
Security Force1 in November 2016, inviting applications for
temporary post of Constable/Driver against backlog vacancies, the
petitioner applied.
2. One of the essential eligibility criteria, as contained in Clause
2(c) of the notification, required the petitioner to possess a driving
licence on 19 November 2016, which was the cut-off date. The
provision reads thus:
1 “CISF”, hereinafter
FAO(OS) (COMM) 48/2025 Page 1 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.04.2025
16:21:22
“2(c) Driving Licence: The candidate should have a valid driving
licence for
(i) Heavy Motor Vehicle or Transport Vehicle;
(ii) Light Motor Vehicle
(iii) Motor cycle with gear
Note: – Light Motor Vehicle licence should be obtained after
attaining the age of eighteen years and Heavy Motor Vehicle
license after attaining the age of twenty years.
Attention is also drawn to the following clause in the Motor
Vehicle Act 1988,
a) Section (4) Age limit in connection with Driving of Motor
Vehicles
(i) No person under the age of 18 years shall drive a
Motor Vehicle in any public place
(ii) No person under the age of 20 years shall drive a
Transport Vehicle in any public place.
b) Section (7) Restrictions on the granting of Learners License for
certain Vehicles;
i) No person shall be granted a learners license to
drive Transport Vehicle unless he has held a driving
license to drive a Light Motor Vehicle for at least
01 year.
Note:
1. Unless the above provisions of Motor Vehicle Act are
complied in the documents (Driving License) submitted by the
candidates, the Driving License will be treated as invalid as per
Motor Vehicle Act and the candidature will be rejected.
2. License for Motor Cycle with gear and LMV licence
obtained before attaining the age of 18 years and HMV/Transport
Vehicle Licence obtained before attaining the age of 20 years will
not be considered valid and the candidature will be rejected, unless
a certificate from the concerned RTO regarding the validity of the
licence is enclosed.
FAO(OS) (COMM) 48/2025 Page 2 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.04.2025
16:21:22
3. Candidates who have been issued Motor Cycle with gear,
LMV and HMV driving licences on a same day have to produce a
certificate from the concerned RTO to the effect that the license is
valid otherwise their candidature will be rejected.”
3. Thus, the petitioner was required, in order to be eligible for
appointment as Constable/Driver, to possess a Heavy Motor
Vehicle2/Transport Vehicle, a Light Motor Vehicle and a Motorcycle
licence with gear.
4. Admittedly, on 19 November 2016, the petitioner did not
possess an HMV licence, though he claims to have had a learner’s
licence on that date. An HMV licence came to be issued to the
petitioner subsequently on 21 December 2016, beyond the last date for
receipt of application and for submission of the licence.
5. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner satisfied
other qualifications for the post and that he also cleared all
examinations and tests resulting in his name figuring in the final result
which was issued in March 2017.
6. On 12 April 2017, the respondent wrote to the petitioner,
submitting that as per the observations of the Force Headquarters, at
the time of verification of documents, it was seen that the HMV
licence submitted by the petitioner, issued by the transport authorities
at Behror, Rajasthan, was issued on 21 December 2016, after the last
2 “HMV”, hereinafter
FAO(OS) (COMM) 48/2025 Page 3 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.04.2025
16:21:22
date for submission of applications which was 19 November 2016.
Pointing out that if the licence had not been issued prior to 19
November 2016, the candidature of the petitioner was liable to be
cancelled under para 7(17)(g) of the notification, the petitioner was
directed to produce the RTO certificate so that the actual date of
issuance of the HMV licence could be verified. Para 7(17)(g) reads
thus:
“7(17) Applications, which are not filled up as per instruction or
partly filled up applications will not be entertained and no
correspondence will be made. Applications may be rejected due to
the reasons such as:
*****
(g) Not possessing the requisite Driving licenses at the
time of submitting application”
7. We may note that there is no dispute about the fact that, in fact,
in the case of the petitioner, the HMV license produced by him, issued
by the Behror RTO was issued only on 21 December 2016, after the
cut-off date of 19 November 2016.
8. On 24 July 2017, the respondent again wrote to the petitioner,
pointing out that the petitioner had not produced the required
certificate from the RTO Behror, as would certify that the HMV
driving licence produced by the petitioner was issued prior to 19
November 2016. Instead, the petitioner by then produced driving
licence issued by the Government of Nagaland.
FAO(OS) (COMM) 48/2025 Page 4 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.04.2025
16:21:22
9. Apropos these latter driving licences, the respondent wrote to
the petitioner on 14 December 2018, pointing out that the petitioner
had produced two driving licences issued by the Government of
Nagaland on 27 April 2017 and 8 November 2010, reflecting different
residential addresses of the petitioner. It was also pointed out that,
under Section 6(1)3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, one person could
not possess more than one driving licence at the same time. The
petitioner was requested to clarify the position.
10. The petitioner, in its response, sought to submit that the two
driving licences issued by the Government of Nagaland were, in fact,
the same, as one was a manual driving licence and one was a smart
card driving license. He also sought to submit that he had two
residential addresses at Nagaland in which the permanent address was
reflected in the smart card driving licence.
11. To a query from the Court, Mr Sureshan, learned Counsel for
the petitioner, acknowledges that the petitioner is, in fact, a residence
of Rajasthan, not of Nagaland, but that he had provided addresses in
Nagaland so as to obtain driving licences from that State. Be that as it
may, we do not deem it necessary to enter into that controversy.
3 6. Restrictions on the holding of driving licences. –
(1) No person shall, while he holds any driving licence for the time being in force, hold any
other driving licence except a learner’s licence or a driving licence issued in accordance with the
provisions of Section 18 or a document authorising, in accordance with the rules made under
Section 139, the person specified therein to drive a motor vehicle.
FAO(OS) (COMM) 48/2025 Page 5 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.04.2025
16:21:22
12. The petitioner professed ignorance of Section 6 of the Motor
Vehicles Act.
13. In any event, the petitioner submitted that, as a driving licence
had been issued by the Behror RTO, the petitioner was entitled to be
appointed as Constable/Driver.
14. On 18 January 2019, the transport authorities in Nagaland
suspended the driving licences issued by the RTO Nagaland, under
Section 19(1)(e)4 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Be it noted, Section
19(1)(e) providers for suspension of a driving licence obtained by
fraud or misrepresentation.
15. It is not in dispute that the petitioner did not challenge the said
order by any means known to law. In other words, the petitioner has
acquiesced to the cancellation of the driving licences issued by the
authorities at Nagaland on the ground that they had been obtained by
fraud or misrepresentation.
4 19. Power of licensing authority to disqualify from holding a driving licence or revoke such
licence. –
(1) If a licensing authority is satisfied, after giving the holder of a driving licence an
opportunity of being heard, that he–
*****
(e) has obtained any driving licence or a licence to drive a particular class or
description of motor vehicle by fraud or misrepresentation;
*****
it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, make an order–
(i) disqualifying that person for a specified period for holding or obtaining any
driving licence to drive all or any classes or descriptions of vehicles specified in the
licence; or
(ii) revoke any such licence.
FAO(OS) (COMM) 48/2025 Page 6 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.04.2025
16:21:22
16. On 24 July 2019, the respondent issued an order to the
petitioner, stating that, after examination of his case and perusal of the
records submitted by the RTO authorities at Behror and at Nagaland,
the petitioner’s candidature was being cancelled as he had failed to
produce any valid driving license issued by the Behror authorities
before the cut-off date of 19 November 2016.
17. Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner has approached
this Court by means of the present writ petition.
18. We have heard Mr. Sureshan, learned Counsel for the petitioner
at length.
19. Mr. Sureshan relies on the reference, in Clause 2(c) of the
notification inviting applications for the post of Driver/Constable,
issued by the CISF in November 2016 and pursuant to which the
petitioner applied, to the extent it makes reference to Section 7 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, particularly to Clause 1 thereof, which states that
“no person would be granted a learner’s license to drive a transport
vehicle unless he has held a driving license to drive a light motor
vehicle for at least one year”. According to Mr. Sureshan, the
inclusion of this stipulation was meant that the HMV learner’s license
held by the petitioner on 19 November 2016 sufficed as a valid HMV
driving license in order to entitle the petitioner to recruitment.
FAO(OS) (COMM) 48/2025 Page 7 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.04.2025
16:21:22
20. Besides, Mr. Sureshan submits that the petitioner was issued a
valid driving license by the Behror RTO shortly after the cut-off date,
on 21 December 2016. That apart, on the cut-off date, the petitioner
was also in possession of the driving licenses issued by the Nagaland
authorities.
Analysis
21. None of these contentions, in our considered opinion, make out
a case for grant of relief to the petitioner.
22. Insofar as the reference to the submission of Mr. Sureshan that
possession of a learner’s license was sufficient, the contention has
merely to be stated to be rejected. A learner’s license does not even
entitle a person to drive a vehicle unaccompanied on the road; much
less can it entitle someone to be appointed as a Constable/Driver in the
CISF. Besides, the notification does not, at any stage, state that a
learner’s license would suffice as a driving license for the purposes of
Clause 2(c). What the petitioner was required to be in possession of
was a driving license for HMV/transport vehicle, LMV as well as
motorcycle with gear. If he did not have valid driving license for
these categories of vehicles, he was not entitled to be considered for
recruitment. We are clear in our mind that the expression “driving
licence” would not encompass, within its fold, a learner’s licence.
FAO(OS) (COMM) 48/2025 Page 8 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.04.2025
16:21:22
23. Thus, admittedly, on 19 November 2016, which was the cut-off
date for producing the relevant documents, the petitioner did not have
a valid driving license for HMV. The driving license came to be
issued by the Behror RTO only on 21 December 2016.
24. The petitioner, therefore, did not fulfil the requisite qualification
of possessing a valid HMV driving license on the cut-off date of 19
November 2016.
25. The Supreme Court has, in various decisions, upheld the
sanctity of a cut-off date and has exhorted courts not to relax cut-off
dates unless the concerned advertisement or notification permits it.
The reason is obvious. If, for example, in the present case, the cut-off
date was to be relaxed, there would be several candidates whose
driving licenses might have been issued after the cut-off date who may
not have applied because they did not have a valid driving license on
that date. The petitioner cannot be singled out for special treatment.
26. As things stand, the petitioner did not have any valid driving
license issued by the Behror RTO on the cut-off date.
27. Insofar as the driving licenses issued by the Nagaland RTO
authorities are concerned, the petitioner could obviously not rely on
the said driving licenses as they came to be cancelled under Section
FAO(OS) (COMM) 48/2025 Page 9 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.04.2025
16:21:22
19(1)(e) on the ground that they have been obtained by fraud and
misrepresentation. As we have noted, that decision has never been
challenged by the petitioner. The petitioner has impliedly acquiesced
to the said decision and to the cancellation of his driving licenses on
that ground. A license which was obtained by fraud or
misrepresentation has no sanctity in law whatsoever. Fraud,
classically, vitiates everything, ecclesiastical as well as temporal.5
28. The result is that, 19 November 2016, the petitioner was not in
possession of a valid HMV driving license. This was an essential
condition as per the recruitment notification.
29. There is, therefore, no error in the respondent’s decision to
cancel the petitioner’s candidature.
30. We regret our inability to come to the aid of the petitioner. The
writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
AJAY DIGPAUL, J.
APRIL 15, 2025
ar/as
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
5 S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1; Devendra Kumar v State of Uttaranchal,
(2013) 9 SCC 363
FAO(OS) (COMM) 48/2025 Page 10 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.04.2025
16:21:22
[ad_1]
Source link