REPORTABL E

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL     APPEAL     NO.3393         OF     2012   (Arising out of SLP(C)No.3655 of 2007)

MAHESHWARI PRASAD & ORS.    … APPELLANTS  Vs.

STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.    … RESPONDENTS

WITH CIVIL     APPEAL     NOS.3394-3395       OF     2012   

(Arising out of SLP(C)Nos.14397-14398 of 2008)

SRI PRAYAG MEHRA    … APPELLANT   Vs.

STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.    … RESPONDENTS

J     U     D     G     M     E     N     T   ALTAMAS     KABIR,     J.   

1. Leave granted.

2. These Appeals are directed against the judgment  

and order dated 14th September, 2006, passed by the  

Jharkhand High Court in L.P.A. No.229 of 2006,  

dismissing the same. The said Letters Patent Appeal  

was directed against the judgment and order passed  

by the learned Single Judge on 13th April, 2006 in  

W.P.(S) No.831 of 2006, and was disposed of in  

terms of an earlier order passed by the High Court  

in W.P.(S) NO.5459 of 2005. L.P.A. No.729 of 2005,  

preferred by the said Writ Petitioners, was  

dismissed by a Division Bench of the Jharkhand High  

Court on 22nd February, 2006, upholding the judgment  

and order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)  

No.5459 of 2005. In order to appreciate the  

impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High  

2

Court, it will be necessary to set out some facts  

in relation to L.P.A. No.729 of 2005, which had  

arisen out of W.P.(S) No.5459 of 2005 and had been  

dismissed.     

3. By an advertisement No.2/2004 published in the  

“Hindustan”, Ranchi on 6th February, 2004,  

candidates who had passed the VIIth Class were  

invited to file applications to fill up 350  

vacancies in the post of Police Drivers in the  

different district forces of the Jharkhand Police.  

In order to be eligible, a candidate was required  

to have passed the VIIth standard and was also  

required to possess a licence for driving “heavy  

and light/heavy vehicles”  from at least two years  

prior to the date of the advertisement. The  

Appellants therein along with other candidates  

filled up the requisite forms and appeared in the  

test which was conducted pursuant to the  

advertisement.  The result-cum-merit list of  

3

successful candidates was published in the  

“Hindustan”  on 29th May, 2005, in which the  

Appellants were declared successful.  However, the  

said result was revised and the merit list was  

republished on 23rd August, 2005, from which the  

Appellants have been excluded.   

4. On behalf of the Writ Petitioners it was  

contended that in the advertisement, there was no  

condition for possessing a licence for driving  

heavy motor vehicles and that the condition  

relating to possession of a licence for driving  

heavy motor vehicles was introduced only to  

accommodate other candidates. The said submission  

was countered on behalf of the Respondent State and  

it was mentioned that a decision had been taken by  

the Selection Committee that only those selected  

candidates who had licence for driving heavy  

vehicles before publication of the advertisement,  

should be appointed. Since the Appellants did not  

4

hold driving licences for heavy motor vehicles,  

they were excluded from the revised list of  

successful candidates. It was also contended on  

behalf of the Respondent State that for the purpose  

of recruitment of Police Drivers in different  

J.A.P. Battalions only such candidates who held  

heavy motor vehicle driving licences, issued to  

them prior to the publication of the advertisement,  

had been considered and declared successful by all  

other Selection Boards constituted by the Police  

Headquarters.  In the judgment delivered by the  

Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court in  

L.P.A. No.729 of 2005, the condition relating to  

driving licences which the candidates were required  

to possess was set out in its Hindi form though in  

English script along with an English translation.  

Inasmuch as, the same is of importance for a  

decision in these appeals as well, the same is  

extracted hereinbelow :-

5

“Motorgari chalane ki Anugyapati : Jinke  pass {bhari tatha chhoti/bhari gari  

chalane hetu} motor challan ki aisi  

anuagyapati prapt ho jo rikti ke vigyapan  

ki tithi se kam se kam do varas purva  

nirgat ki gayee ho.”

English     Translation   : Motor driving licence : A person having  {Heavy and light/heavy driving licence}  such motor driving licence which must be  issued at least two years prior to the  date of publication of the vacancy.

5. On behalf of the Appellants it was contended by  

Mr. Shekhar Prit Jha,  learned advocate, that the  

earlier decision in L.P.A. No.729 of 2005, did not  

correctly appreciate the provisions of the  

advertisement and the Division Bench of the High  

Court, which decided the present L.P.A. No.229 of  

2006, committed an error in relying upon the same.

6. Mr. Jha submitted that the advertisement in  

question clearly indicated that the eligibility  

6

criteria for recruitment of Police Drivers in  

different J.A.P. Battalions  made it compulsory for  

a candidate to have a licence which either enabled  

the licence holder to drive heavy motor vehicles or  

light motor vehicles and heavy motor vehicles.  Mr.  

Jha submitted that reading the advertisement, as it  

is, it cannot be said that the eligibility criteria  

was confined to holding of a licence to drive heavy  

motor vehicles only.  Learned counsel urged that by  

entertaining the candidature of only those who  

possessed licences for driving heavy motor  

vehicles, the Respondents had acted contrary to the  

advertisement and the recruitment process was,  

therefore, required to be nullified.   Mr. Jha  

further submitted that the judgment of the Division  

Bench in L.P.A. No.729 of 2005 was based on certain  

surmises that for the purpose of driving armed  

forces vehicles, a candidate must possess a driving  

licence to drive heavy motor vehicles, which,  

7

according to Mr. Jha, went against the very grain  

of the advertisement.  

7. As to the other question, as to whether having  

been selected, the Appellants were entitled to  

appointment, is another issue altogether since at  

the very basic stage the Appellants were being  

sought to be excluded from consideration since they  

did not have driving licences for driving heavy  

motor vehicles exclusively.   

8. On the other hand, appearing for the State and  

the other Respondents, learned counsel submitted  

that the judgment and order passed in L.P.A. No.729  

of 2005 was fully justified, since it was the  

Recruitment authorities who were conscious of the  

purpose for which the appointments were being made.  

It was submitted that in L.P.A. No.729 of 2005, a  

counter affidavit had been filed in which it was  

stated that a decision had been taken by the  

Selection Committee that only those successful  

8

candidates, who had licences for driving heavy  

motor vehicles, who should be appointed, since the  

purpose of recruitment for such drivers was to  

drive heavy motor vehicles, which the holder of a  

licence for driving light motor vehicles was not  

entitled to do.      

9. Learned counsel submitted that the Division  

Bench of the Jharkhand High Court did not commit  

any error in disposing of the matter in terms of  

the judgment delivered in L.P.A. No.729 of 2005.

10. Having heard learned counsel for the respective  

parties, we are of the view that even the  

advertisement on which reliance has been placed by  

the Appellants herein, laid stress on a candidate  

having to possess a licence for driving heavy motor  

vehicles.  The criteria for eligibility in the  

advertisement indicates that the candidate had to  

hold a licence for driving heavy motor vehicles or  

light motor vehicles along with heavy motor  

9

vehicles.  In our view, the second criteria did not  

necessarily mean that a person holding a licence  

for driving light motor vehicles had to be  

selected, since in the advertisement it was a  

person holding a licence for driving light motor  

vehicles as well as heavy motor vehicles, who was  

eligible for appointment.  It is not as if the  

advertisement indicated that a candidate possessing  

a licence for driving only light motor vehicles  

would be eligible, the same had to be combined with  

the right to drive heavy motor vehicles.   In other  

words, those having a combined licence for driving  

both light motor vehicles and heavy motor vehicles,  

would be considered for appointment, along with  

those holding a licence to drive heavy motor  

vehicles exclusively.   

11. Moreover, we are inclined to agree with learned  

counsel for the Respondents that it is for the  

recruiting authorities to consider the candidates  

1

to be appointed according to their needs.  It does  

not appear to us that there has been a departure  

from the advertisement as published.  

12. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with  

the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the  

Jharkhand High Court impugned in these Appeals and  

the same are, accordingly dismissed.    

13. There will, however, be no order as to costs.   

………………………………………………………J.    (ALTAMAS KABIR)

………………………………………………………J.                             (SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR) New Delhi Dated:04.04.2012

1