IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT 130 HANS RAJ STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present: Mr. Mr. Ravi Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Tanisha Peshawaria, DAG, Haryana VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL) Challenge i dated 28.05.2018 passed by respondent No.4 Roadways Nuh (Mewat), Haryana whereby appointment letter No. 1959 EA/RK dated petitioner was wrongly declared ineligible for the post of Driver 2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner had been shortlisted for appointment to the by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission, however, his candidature had been rejected by the respondents vide order dated 28.05.2018 on the ground that the Driving License issued by the RTA, Nuh was invalid. He contends that the office of RT IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP-11773 Date of Decision: Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ ******* Mr. Abhishek Pundir, Advocate Mr. Ravi Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Tanisha Peshawaria, DAG, Haryana ******* VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the impugned order 28.05.2018 passed by respondent No.4 Roadways Nuh (Mewat), Haryana whereby appointment letter No. 1959 EA/RK dated 16.04.2018 issued to the petitioner was withdrawn and the petitioner was wrongly declared ineligible for the post of Driver Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner had been shortlisted for appointment to the by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission, however, his candidature had been rejected by the respondents vide order dated 28.05.2018 on the ground that the Driving License issued by the RTA, Nuh was invalid. He contends that the office of RTA, Nuh has verified that the license was validly IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH 11773-2025 Date of Decision: 29.04.2025 ... Petitioner ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ for Ms. Tanisha Peshawaria, DAG, Haryana. n the present writ petition is to the impugned order 28.05.2018 passed by respondent No.4-General Manager, Haryana Roadways Nuh (Mewat), Haryana whereby appointment letter No. 1959- 16.04.2018 issued to the petitioner was withdrawn and the petitioner was wrongly declared ineligible for the post of Driver. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner had been shortlisted for appointment to the post of Driver by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission, however, his candidature had been rejected by the respondents vide order dated 28.05.2018 on the ground that the Driving License issued by the RTA, Nuh was invalid. He contends A, Nuh has verified that the license was validly General Manager, Haryana VISHAL SHARMA 2025.05.02 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11773- renewed by them for the period from 15.05.2012 to 14.05.2015 and notwithstanding the said verification, the petitioner has been wrongly withdrawn. 3. I have heard learned respective parties and have gone through the documents appended alongwith the present writ petition. 4. While the peculiar facts however, the impugned order that verification process of the said Driving License was undertaken and the office of RTA, Nuh had been informed vide office letter dated 10.05.2018 that the Driving License Mathura and had only been renewed by them for the period from 15.05.2012 to 14.05.2015. It was on receipt of the said communication that a verification of the issuance of the original license was the office of the license number as mentioned in the petitioner belonged to one Mahesh Chand son of P 03.05.2027, hence, there was no occasion for seeking renewal of the said license from RTA, Nuh for the period from 15.05.2012 to 14.05.2015. It was specifically informed by the Office of ARTO, Mathura that the said Driving License had not been issued in the name of Hans Raj son of Om Parkash i.e. the petitioner herein. one Driving License which was not satisfy the prescribed period -2025 renewed by them for the period from 15.05.2012 to 14.05.2015 and notwithstanding the said verification, the offer of appointment issued to the petitioner has been wrongly withdrawn. I have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and have gone through the documents appended alongwith the present writ petition. While the peculiar facts stated above however, the impugned order passed by the verification process of the said Driving License was undertaken and the office of RTA, Nuh had been informed vide office letter dated 10.05.2018 that the Driving License number Old No. 6092/MTR/07 belongs to ARTO and had only been renewed by them for the period from 15.05.2012 to 14.05.2015. It was on receipt of the said communication that a verification of the issuance of the original license was the office of the ARTO, Mathura. An intimation was received license number as mentioned in the renewal application submitted by the petitioner belonged to one Mahesh Chand son of P 03.05.2027, hence, there was no occasion for seeking renewal of the said license from RTA, Nuh for the period from 15.05.2012 to 14.05.2015. It was specifically informed by the Office of ARTO, Mathura that the said Driving License had not been issued in the name of Hans Raj son of Om Parkash i.e. the petitioner herein. Thereafter, the petitioner also produced one Driving License which was issued from Manipur which however did not satisfy the prescribed period i.e. of three years. -2- renewed by them for the period from 15.05.2012 to 14.05.2015 and offer of appointment issued to the Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and have gone through the documents appended stated above is not in dispute, passed by the respondent-authorities states verification process of the said Driving License was undertaken and the office of RTA, Nuh had been informed vide office letter dated 10.05.2018 number Old No. 6092/MTR/07 belongs to ARTO and had only been renewed by them for the period from 15.05.2012 to 14.05.2015. It was on receipt of the said communication that a verification of the issuance of the original license was undertaken from intimation was received that the said renewal application submitted by the petitioner belonged to one Mahesh Chand son of Prahlad and was valid upto 03.05.2027, hence, there was no occasion for seeking renewal of the said license from RTA, Nuh for the period from 15.05.2012 to 14.05.2015. It was specifically informed by the Office of ARTO, Mathura that the said Driving License had not been issued in the name of Hans Raj son of Om ter, the petitioner also produced issued from Manipur which however did i.e. of three years. and had only been renewed by them for the period from undertaken from Driving License had not been issued in the name of Hans Raj son of Om VISHAL SHARMA 2025.05.02 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11773- 5. Even though much emphasis has been laid by the petitioner on the verification of the Driving however, the verification process clearly shows that it was not a case of issuance of the Driving License by the RTA, Nuh, rather, the same was only a renewal of the license and as per the report received from the ART Mathura, the original license was never issued in favour of Hans Raj and was rather issued in f documentation had been submitted by the petitioner for seeking renewal of the license. Moreover, the impugned order was passed in the year 2018 and there has been a delay of nearly 07 years in approaching this Court without giving any satisfa 6. At this stage, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner seeks withdrawal of the present writ petition. 7. Disposed of as withdrawn. APRIL 29, 202 Vishal Sharma -2025 Even though much emphasis has been laid by the petitioner on the verification of the Driving License by the Office of the RTA, Nuh, however, the verification process clearly shows that it was not a case of issuance of the Driving License by the RTA, Nuh, rather, the same was only a renewal of the license and as per the report received from the ART Mathura, the original license was never issued in favour of Hans Raj and was rather issued in favour of Mahesh Chand son of Prah documentation had been submitted by the petitioner for seeking renewal of the license. Moreover, the impugned order was passed in the year 2018 and there has been a delay of nearly 07 years in approaching this Court without giving any satisfactory reason. At this stage, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner seeks withdrawal of the present writ petition. Disposed of as withdrawn. , 2025 (VINOD S. BHARDWA Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -3- Even though much emphasis has been laid by the petitioner on License by the Office of the RTA, Nuh, however, the verification process clearly shows that it was not a case of issuance of the Driving License by the RTA, Nuh, rather, the same was only a renewal of the license and as per the report received from the ARTO, Mathura, the original license was never issued in favour of Hans Raj and avour of Mahesh Chand son of Prahlad. A bogus documentation had been submitted by the petitioner for seeking renewal of the license. Moreover, the impugned order was passed in the year 2018 and there has been a delay of nearly 07 years in approaching this Court without At this stage, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner seeks withdrawal of the present writ petition. VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No : Yes/No issuance of the Driving License by the RTA, Nuh, rather, the same was only VISHAL SHARMA 2025.05.02 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document