1 2025:CGHC:8543-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 127 of 2025 1 - Prakash Tiwari S/o Shri Ashok Tiwari Aged About 36 Years R/o Q. No. LIG,124 Dindayal Colony, Mangla, P.S. City Kotwali, Tahsil And Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 4). ... Appellant versus 1 - Vijay Kumar Bhawani S/o Shri Syam Bihari Aged About 38 Years R/o Village - Nagai (Baima), P.S. Sarkanda, Tahsil And Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Petitioner). 2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Local Administration And Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 1) 3 - Nagar Panchayat, Sakri Through Chief Municipal Officer, Sakri Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Now Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur Through Its Commissioner) (Respondent No. 2) 4 - Joint Director Local Administration And Development Department, Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 3) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Sr. Advocate along with Ms. Shivali Bansal, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Shri H.V. Sharma, Advocate. For State : Shri Sangharsh Pandey, Dy. Govt. Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Shri Ashish Tiwari, Advocate. Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2025.03.03 11:25:26 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Judgment on Board 19.02.2025 Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ. 1 The present writ appeal has been filed by the appellant/petitioner against the impugned order dated 28.04.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No.2067 of 2014 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 2 Brief facts of the case are that, on 26.04.2013, an advertisement was issued by the Nagar Panchayat, Sakri for appointment on the post of Driver in open Category. The participants were required to possess valid driving license of "Light and Heavy Motor Vehicle". Pursuant to said advertisement, the appellant, respondent No.1 herein and other candidates applied for the said post and after due selection process, the name of respondent No.1 herein was recommended. The President-in-Council vide its meeting held on 01.10 2013 passed the resolution in favour of respondent No.1 and vide order dated 03.10.2013 an order of appointment was issued in favour of respondent No.1. Being aggrieved with non selection, the respondent No.1 herein filed a writ petition being WPS No.2067 of 2014 which was allowed and appointment of appellant herein was set aside vide impugned order dated 28.04.2023. The said order of Single Judge was put to challenge by the respondent/Department in Writ Appeal No.865 of 2024. The said Writ Appeal got dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 20.12.2024. In the meantime, Review Petition filed by 3 the appellant herein against the order passed by learned Single Judge also got dismissed in the light of Writ Appeal filed by the State/Department against the same order passed by learned Single Judge already having been dismissed on 20.12.2024. Hence this third round of litigation by way of present Writ Appeal. 3 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 4 In the present case the advertisement for recruitment on the post of Driver with the department was issued on 26.04.2013. The requisite condition was that a candidate should have possessed the driving license to drive Light and Heavy Motor Vehicles. The cut off date for submission of the application form by the candidates was 15.05.2013 up to 5 PM. The appellant herein annexed a copy of his driving license in which it reflects that he was having driving license to drive Light Motor Vehicle issued on 02.12.2006, Motorcycle with Gear (MCWG) from 02.12.2006 and Transport Vehicles from 05.02.2014. There is no license issued to the appellant with respect to Heavy Motor Vehicle till date of submission of the application for recruitment of Driver. When there is a condition in the advertisement itself that candidate should have possessed the driving license to drive Light and Heavy Motor Vehicles, then the candidate must have possessed the driving license for Heavy Motor Vehicles also for appointment on the said post of Driver. The definition of Light Motor Vehicle has been given in Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, MV Act), which reads as under: 4 “2 (21) "light motor vehicle" means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7,500 kilograms” 5 Though there is no definition in the MV Act with respect to Heavy Motor Vehicle, but there is a specific class of vehicle like Heavy Goods Vehicle and Heavy Passenger Motor Vehicle defined under Sections 2(16) & 2(17) of the MV Act as under : “2 (16) "heavy goods vehicle" means any goods carriage the gross vehicle weight of which, or a tractor or a road-roller the unladen weight of either of which, exceeds 12,000 kilograms; 2(17) "heavy passenger motor vehicle" means any public service vehicle or private service vehicle or educational institution bus or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of any of which, or a motor car the unladen weight of which, exceeds 12,000 kilograms.” 6 The definition of Transport Vehicle was given in Section 2(47) of the MV Act which reads as under: “2(47) "transport vehicle" means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle.” 7 The entries made in the driving license of the appellant with respect to Transport Vehicle cannot be said to be transport vehicle of Heavy Vehicle when there is specific clause of vehicle defined in the MV Act for which the driving license is required. Once in the advertisement the requisite qualification was mentioned that candidate should have possessed the driving license to drive the Heavy vehicle, there should be an endorsement in the driving license of the appellant that he is 5 having driving license to drive Heavy Vehicle either Heavy Goods Vehicle or Heavy Passenger Motor Vehicle. 8 The impugned order dated 28.04.2023 was challenged by the State and the department by filing Writ Appeal No.865 of 2024 (State of Chhattisgarh & Others Vs. Vijay Kumar Bhawani and Others), which was dismissed vide order dated 20.12.2024 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this court affirming the well reasoned findings and conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge in writ petition. The learned Single Judge after considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Gujrat & Other Vs. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari & Another, AIR 2012 SC 3281, Maheshwari Prasad & Others Vs. State of Jharkhand & Others, AIR 2012 SC 2824 and after adverting the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as material produced in the writ petition, came into conclusion that the appellant was not having requisite qualification for appointment on the post of Driver as he was not possessing the driving license of Heavy Vehicle. The eligibility criteria for appointment on the said post of Driver was the candidate having driving license to drive Light & Heavy Motor Vehicle. Though there was an endorsement in the driving license of the appellant herein to drive Transport Vehicle, but the same was of the year 2014 i.e. much after the date of his appointment order i.e. 03.10.2013. The learned Single Judge after adverting into entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as law applicable to the field has passed the order and appointment order of the respondent No.4/writ appellant herein dated 03.10.2013 was set aside and further the 6 respondent authorities were directed to re-consider all the applications pursuant to the advertisement dated 26.04.2013 and to pass suitable orders after due scrutiny of the applications as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement, in which we do not find any perversity or illegality. Further, the Writ Appeal filed by the State and Department vide Writ Appeal No.865 of 2024 has also been dismissed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 20.12.2024 and therefore we are not inclined to interfere in the present writ appeal filed by the respondent/writ appellant. 9 In writ appeal no interference is warranted in the order passed by the Single Judge unless palpable infirmities are being shown in the impugned order. From perusal of entire material placed on record, we do not find any such infirmities or irregularities in the order passed by learned Single Judge warranting interference of this court. 10 The writ appeal accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice inder