MAHESHWARI PRASAD & ORS.versusSTATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

                         (2012] 2 S.C.R. 708


A                 MAHESHWARI PRASAD & ORS.
                                   v.
                  STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 3393 of 2012)

                            APR:L 4, 2012
B
       [ALTAMAS KABIR SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, JJ.]

         SERVICE LAW:

c        Recruitment - Police Drivers - Eligibility - Advertisement
    dated 6. 2. 2004 inviting applications for the posts of Police
    Drivers in State of Jharkhand - Held: The criteria for eligibility
    in the advertisement indicates that the candidate had to hold
    a licence for driving heavy motor vehicles or light motor
0   vehicles along with heavy motor vehicles - 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 - Thus, those having a combined licence for driving
E   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.

       The instant appeals arose out of the writ petitions
  filed by the appellants challenging the merit list of Police
F Drivers republished on 23.8.2005 pursuant to
  advertisement dated 6.2.2004 inviting applications to fill
  up 350 vacancies of Police Drivers in the State of
  Jharkhand. Their case was that the result-cum-merit list
  of successful candidates was published on 29.5.2005 in
G which they were declared successful, but the said result
  was revised and the merit list was republished on
  23.8.2005 excluding their names. It was contended that
  there was no condition for possessing a licence for
  driving heavy motor vehicles and the said condition was
H                                 708
   MAHESHWARI PRASAD & ORS. v. STATE OF                709    .
           JHARKHAND & ORS.
introduced only to accommodate other candidates.              A
    Dismissing the appeals, the Court
    HELD:
     Even the advertisement on which reliance has been
                                                              8
placed by the appellants, 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 vehicles. The second criteria did      C
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   D
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. Thus, those having a
combined licence for driving both light motor vehicles and    E
heavy motor vehicles, would be considered for
appointment, along with those holding a licence to drive
heavy motor vehicles exclusively. Moreover, it is for the
recruiting authorities to consider the candidates to be
appointed according to their needs. It does not appear        F
that there has been a departure from the advertisement
as published. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere
with the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the
High Court impugned in the appeals. [para 10- 12] [713-
F-H; 714-A-D]                                                 G
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICT!ON : Civil Appeal No.
3393 of 2012.
    From the Judgment & Order dated 14.09.2006 of the High
Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in LP.A. No. 229 of 2006.        H
    710      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 2 S.C.R.


A                                   WITH
    C.A. Nos. 339¢~3395 of 2012.

        Shekhar Prit Jha, Vikrant Bhardwaj, Sumit Kumar, Kumari
    Supriya, Danish Zubain Khan for the Appellants.
B
        Ratan ·Kumar Choudhari, Ambhoj Kumar Sinha,
    Dharmendra Kumar Sinha for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

C         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 LP.A. No.229 of 2006, dismissing the same. The
D 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)
  N0.5459 of 2005. LP.A. No.729 of 2005, preferred by the said
  Writ Petitioners, was dismissed by a Division Bench of the
E 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 Court, it will be necessary to
  set out some facts in relation to LP.A. No.729 of 2005, which
F 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
G had passed the Vllth 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 Vllth standard
                                        a
  and was also required to possess licence for driving "heavy
H
    MAHESHWARI PRASAD & ORS. v. STATE OF                      711
     JHARKHAND & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

and lighUheavy vehicles" from at least two years prior to the date   A
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 successful candidates was published in
the "Hindustan" on 29th May, 2005, in which the Appellants were      B
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      C
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            D
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 hold driving licences for heavy
motor vehicles, they were excluded from the revised list of          E
successful candidates. It was also contended on behalf of the
Respondent State that for the purpose of recruitment of Police
O_rivers 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         F
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 LP.A. No.729 of 2005, the condition relating to driving
licences which the candidates were required to possess was           G
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 :-
                                                                     H
    712      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 2 S.C.R.


A         "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 :
B
          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.
c
       5. On behalf of the Appellants it was contended by Mr.
  Shekhar Prit Jha, learned advocate, that the earlier decision
  in LP.A. No,729 of 2005, did not correctly appreciate the
  provisions of the advertisement and the Division Bench of the
D High Court, which decided the present LP.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 criteria for recruitment of
    Police Drivers in different J.A.P. Battalions made it compulsory
E 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 th'e
  . eligibility criteria was confined to holding of a licence to drive
F 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
G that the judgment of the Division Bench in LP.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, according
    to Mr. Jha, went against the very grain of the advertisement.
H
    MAHESHWARI PRASAD & ORS. v. STATE OF                     713
     JHARKHAND & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
     7. As to the other question, as to whether having been          A
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.                                                B

      8. On the other hand, appearing for the State and the other
Respondents, learned counsel submitted that the judgment and
order passed in LP.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           C
submitted that in LP.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
candidates, who had licences for driving heavy motor vehicles,
who should be appointed, since the purpose of recruitment for        D
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         E
the Jharkhand High Court did not commit any error in disposing
of the matter in terms of the judgment delivered in LP .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
                                                                   F
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 G
motor 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· H
   714      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012) 2 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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
C counsel for the Respondents that it is for the recruiting
  authorities to consider the candidates 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
D 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.

E R.P.                                       Appeals dismissed.