2011 (8) TMI 1100 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the qualifications prescribed in the Rajasthan Transport Subordinate Service Rules, 1963 (for short, the Rules ) for the post of Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspector are mandatory? Whether the petitioners, who were appointed as Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspectors in compliance of the direction given by the learned Single Judge of the High Court are entitled to continue in service despite reversal of the order of the learned Single judge by the Division Bench?

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the qualifications prescribed in the Rajasthan Transport Subordinate Service Rules, 1963, for the post of Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspector are mandatory.
2. Whether the petitioners, who were appointed as Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspectors in compliance with the direction given by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, are entitled to continue in service despite the reversal of the order by the Division Bench.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Mandatory Nature of Prescribed Qualifications:
The Supreme Court examined whether the qualifications specified in the Rajasthan Transport Subordinate Service Rules, 1963, for the post of Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspector are mandatory. The Court noted that the use of the word "shall" in Rule 11 indicates that the qualifications listed in the Schedule are mandatory. A candidate must possess the required educational and technical qualifications, working experience, and a valid driving licence authorizing them to drive motor cycles, heavy goods vehicles, and heavy passenger vehicles. The Court emphasized that a person who does not meet these qualifications cannot compete for the post.

The Court referred to several precedents, including Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab and M.A. Murthy v. State of Karnataka, which established that the eligibility criteria must be satisfied by the date appointed in the relevant service rules or the advertisement, or by the last date for submission of applications if no specific date is provided. The Full Bench of the High Court correctly held that candidates must possess the driving licence by the last date for submission of applications.

2. Continuation in Service Despite Reversal by Division Bench:
The petitioners argued that they should be allowed to continue in service as they had all the qualifications, including the driving licence, by the date of the interview. However, the Court rejected this argument, stating that the qualifications must be met by the last date for submission of applications. The Court also dismissed the argument that a learner's licence is equivalent to a driving licence, noting the clear distinction between the two as defined in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Court further addressed the petitioners' plea to continue in service under Article 142 of the Constitution, which allows the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary to do complete justice. The Court held that this power cannot be used to legitimize the appointments of individuals who were ineligible for selection. Allowing such appointments would undermine the rights of eligible and more meritorious candidates.

The Court also noted that the Division Bench of the High Court had directed the Commission to complete the process of fresh selection within three months and maintain the status quo for those already in service during this period. The Supreme Court extended this directive, allowing the petitioners to remain in service until the fresh selection process is completed within the next four months. The Court instructed the Commission to conduct the selection process impartially, without being influenced by the interim orders.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the qualifications prescribed in the Rules are mandatory and must be met by the last date for submission of applications. The petitioners, who did not possess the required driving licence by this date, were ineligible for selection. The Court dismissed the special leave petitions but allowed the petitioners to continue in service until the fresh selection process is completed within four months. The Commission was directed to report compliance to the High Court.

← Previous Next →