Driving Not Merely A Qualification On Paper But Also Involves Hands-On Experience Coupled With Regular Practice: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has emphasized that driving is not merely a qualification on paper but also involves hands-on experience coupled with regular practice.

The Court was hearing a batch of Civil Appeals filed against the common Judgment of the Telangana High Court’s Division Bench, by which the Appeals filed by the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board (TSLPRB) were dismissed.

The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti remarked, “Hypothetically, a case may arise where a person renews his licence regularly, such that he may have a licence for many years in continuity inasmuch as the initial licence granted to him gets renewed from time to time, before the existing licence expires. This could operate in a cycle, where the said person keeps renewing the licence before expiry. Such person would come within the scope of eligibility as prescribed in the Notifications. However, after the Amendment Act, 2019, as per the 1988 Act, from the very next day after the date of expiry, without renewal, the person holding an expired licence is incompetent to drive the vehicles he had such licence for, meaning thereby, that there is a legal disability for driving. Coming back to the present case, the Notifications are for recruitment to the posts of Driver. It cannot be lost sight of or denied that driving is not merely a qualification on paper but also involves hands-on experience coupled with regular practice.”

The Bench said that a lack of practice may hinder a person’s capability of being able to drive a vehicle, especially if the vehicle is to be used for police purposes and/or for disaster response/recovery.

Senior Advocate K. Radhakrishnan represented the Appellant, while Senior Advocate Nikhil Goel represented the Respondents.

Factual Background

In April 2022, the Appellant-TSLPRB issued a recruitment notification to fill up 100 posts of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT) Police Constable (Drivers) (Men) in the Police Transport Organization. It issued another notification in May month to fill up 225 posts of Driver Operator in the Telangana State Disaster Response and Fire Services Department. In all, 325 posts of Drivers were notified to be recruited. One of the essential qualifications stipulated in the notification was that the candidate must have possessed either Light Motor Vehicle, LMV (Transport with Badge Number) or Heavy Motor Vehicle licence (HMV Licence), or both together, continuously for a period of full two years and above as on the date of the notification and similar condition in notification dated 20.05.2022 was that one must have possessed valid HMV Licence continuously for a period of two years and above as on date of the notification. The selection method consisted of skill test for 100 marks and written examination for 200 marks.

Skill test was conducted between 02.03.2023 to 24.03.2023 and only those who had valid driving licences were allowed to participate in the written examination which was supposed to be held on 02.04.2023. The private Respondents were not allowed to participate in the written examination as they were not holding driving licences valid continuously for two years as on the date of the said notifications due to which they approached the High Court. The Single Judge directed the Appellant to allow the Respondents who had renewed their driving licences within one year from the dates of expiry of their driving licences to participate in the future selection process of driving test and final written examination, but not to announce the results. It allowed their Writ Petition, holding that there was no break in holding the driving licences, since post-renewal the validity of the licences take place from their dates of expiry and not dates of renewal. The Appellant challenged this via Appeals, which were dismissed by the Division Bench. Being aggrieved, the Appellant was before the Apex Court.

Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, observed, “… Section 14 of the 1988 Act, as it stands today, does not provide for the licence to continue after its expiry even for a single day; however, before the Amendment Act, 2019, the then-existing proviso made the date extendable automatically by a further period of 30 days from the date of its expiry.”

The Court noted that Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) only extends the period by which an expired licence would be renewed, meaning thereby, that the same licence would continue, but is silent about what happens during the interregnum i.e., after expiry but before renewal.

“The changes made in sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 15 of the 1988 Act relate only to the fee payable for renewal, which have no bearing on the present cases. … a licence no more automatically extends beyond the period of its expiry, as was provided for in the unamended last proviso to Section 14 of the 1988 Act. This deliberate omission by the Legislature cannot be labelled cosmetic”, it said.

The Court was of the view that the requirement/condition that for the last two years continuously preceding the date(s) of the notifications, the candidates should possess driving licences cannot be termed unreasonable.

“The matter can be looked at from another lens. Licences, under the unamended provision, were issued for not less than 3 years at the first instance and/or on renewal until the time a person attained the age of 50 years. Thus, once a licence was issued for a minimum of 3 years, if the intention of the Appellant was that a person should merely possess a licence for the last two years, the usage of the term ‘continuously’ was redundant in the Notifications. As such, we would have to afford due weightage to the same in context of the Notifications at hand”, it added.

The Court further observed that from the date of expiry of licence, its holder is barred under law from driving and the theory that once a licence is renewed, even after a gap, the renewal would operate from a back date implying that the licence was continuing and valid even for and during the interregnum cannot be countenanced.

“The requirement of possessing a licence continuously for a period of two years prior to the dates of the Notifications cannot be negated only because in the driving test, a person may pass. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, that persons who were otherwise similarly-situated to the private respondents/writ petitioners, upon proper appreciation of the terms and conditions of the Notifications may not have applied under the bona fide and genuine belief that they were not eligible, which as we have held, was correct. Thus, persons who despite not being eligible having applied just because they may qualify in the driving test that too having benefited under an erroneous interim Order of the High Court cannot be allowed to get an undue benefit over all similarly-situated persons who did not apply. … Secondly, the driving test is by way of abundant caution to verify and ensure that the candidate is in regular practice of driving”, it also noted.

Conclusion

The Court was of the opinion that it cannot be construed as waiving the requirement of having a valid driving licence continuously for a period of two years prior to the date(s) of the notifications. It added that the driving test is aimed at filtering out candidates who may possess valid driving licences but may not be competent, regular or well-versed in actual driving due to various reasons.

“We are constrained to record that the Division Bench did not engage with the issue, as after noting the rival submissions advanced at the Bar, the Impugned Judgment merely extracted the Single Judge’s Final Order/Judgment dated 30.06.2023, without assigning any reasons as to why it was ‘not inclined to interfere’ with the said Order/Judgment. As much time has elapsed, the recruitment process be completed by the Appellant expeditiously and at any rate, within three months reckoned from today”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeals and set aside the impugned Judgment.

Cause Title- Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board v. Penjarla Vijay Kumar & Ors. Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1452)

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocate K. Radhakrishnan, AORs Aswathi M.K., Devina Sehgal, Advocates Srikanth Varma Mudunuru, and C. Kranthi Kumar.

Respondents: Senior Advocate Nikhil Goel, AORs P. Mohith Rao, Vikas Mehta, Ankita Gupta, Advocates J. Akshitha, Eugene S Philomene, and Basa Mithun Shashank.

Click here to read/download the Judgment