GAUHATI HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER FOR MAHESH HAZARIKA V/S THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AND 3 ORS.

GUWAHATI, India, July 19 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on June 18:

1. Heard Mr. N. Borah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Ms. S. Sarma, the learned Standing Counsel for the Gauhati High Court appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2; Mr. A. Dhar, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 3; Ms. M.D. Borah, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 4.

2. The petitioner herein has assailed the appointment of the respondent No. 3 in the post of Driver pursuant to a selection process initiated by the Gauhati High Court. The challenge made to the appointment of the respondent No. 3 is on the ground that the licence of the respondent No. 3 was not a valid license in terms with Section 4(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which stipulates that no person under the age of 20 (twenty) years shall drive a transport vehicle in any public place. It was mentioned that the private respondent would be 20 (twenty) years only on 15.01.2014 and the last date for submission of the application was on 23.12.2013, on which date, the private respondent was not eligible to be entitled to drive a transport vehicle.

3. Taking into account the case of the petitioner, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the advertisement which was issued on 09.12.2013 for filling up of 5 (five) post of Barkandaz (Driver) in the Principal Seat of the Gauhati High Court. The eligibility condition was that the candidate should have a minimum educational qualification of Class VIII Standard and should possess a valid Professional Driving Licence.

4. It is relevant to take note of from the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 4, that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 do not conceive of a Professional Driving Licence. What is conceived of is a transport licence and a nontransport licence. Therefore, the very term in the advertisement of having a Professional Driving Licence was ambiguous and as such none of the candidates had a Professional Driving License.

5. This Court finds it pertinent to take note of that, 16 (sixteen) candidates participated in the selection process. The private respondent was at Serial No. 5 in the select list, whereas the petitioner was at Serial No.

6. Pursuant thereto, on 05.02.2015, the select list was published wherein the petitioner's name was shown in the waiting list at Serial No. 1 whereas the private respondent was amongst the selected candidates.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (http://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=rC8SUFuyEFsvB5V61cXUrB%2B8FFYZyT2wOa5R5rhBBAugNiNppzGQET16uaLw8fCv&caseno=WP(C)/763/2018&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010022892018&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.