Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board vs Penjarla Vijay Kumar & Ors.

2025 INSC 1452 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEALS NO. OF 2025 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS (CIVIL) NO.8684-8688 OF 2024]

TELANGANA STATE LEVEL POLICE RECRUITMENT BOARD …APPELLANT 1 VERSUS PENJARLA VIJAY KUMAR & ORS. ETC. …RESPONDENTS

[Respondents in Civil Appeal No._______ of 2025 @ SLP (C) No.8684/2025] R1: PENJARLA VIJAY KUMAR R2: GANDU VIKRAM GOUD R3: KAPPERA CHANDRAIAH R4: THIRUNAGARI MURALI KRISHNA R5: NALLAGONI SAGAR R6: KARIJALA ANIL R7: GUJJA MAHESH R8: THONDA MALLESH R9: KAVALI SADANANDAM R10: MUTHINENI YAKANNA R11: CHITYALA NAVEEN R12: SARIKONDA GANESH KUMAR R13: KADARI SRINIVAS Signature Not Verified

R14: KETHAVATH BHARATH Digitally signed by VARSHA MENDIRATTA Date: 2025.12.18 17:05:03 IST Reason:

1 Common Appellant in all the appeals emanating from Special Leave Petitions (Civil) No.8684- 8688/2024.

1 R15: SUGURU SHIVUDU R16: PALLELA VEERAIAH R17: SHEIK RIYAZ R18: SHEIK FAYAZ R19: KETHAVATH HANUMA NAIK R20: MAJLIKARJUN R21: OSMAN R22: DURGAM PRAVEEN KUMAR R23: NAREDLU VENKATESH R24: PATTIPATI MAHESH R25: DUNN SAIKUMAR R26: BATTHULA VENKATESH R27: KOLA ROHITH R28: G JAYARAMUDU R29: BANDLA SANDEEP R30: KANDRESAI CHARAN R31: KYADASI KIRAN KUMAR R32: REDDY PAVAN R33: THE STATE OF TELANGANA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT

[Respondents in Civil Appeal No._______ of 2025 @ SLP (C) No.8685/2025] R1: MANGA SHIVUDU R2: K SRINIVAS R3: GUGULOTH RAMESH R4: KADEM SAIKIRAN R5: CHIKKUDU PRASAD R6: GANDA SIRI MAHESH R7: MD MAZAHAR 2 R8: JETTY SAI KRISHNA R9: KUMMARI KRISHNA R10: SHAIK RAFI R11: BONKURU SRINIVASULU R12: THE STATE OF TELANGANA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME DEPARTMENT

[Respondents in Civil Appeal No._______ of 2025 @ SLP (C) No.8686/2025] R1: GUMMA GANGARAJU R2: THE STATE OF TELANGANA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT

[Respondents in Civil Appeal No._______ of 2025 @ SLP (C) No.8687/2025] R1: MOHAMMAD SADDAM HUSSAIN R2: PESARI KARTHIK R3: BANOTHU SANTHOSH KUMAR R4: KUNCHAM ADITYA R5: ANKURI LAVAKUMAR R6: SOMIDI VENKATESH R7: KETHAVATH HANMANTHU R8: PANDYALA RAMESH R9: GUNDU NAGENDRABABU R10: SAPAVAT GOPAL R11: ANUPATI NARESH R12: DHURUMUTLA MADHU R13: KISHAN VADTHYA R14: BARLA ANIL KUMAR R15: CHINAPANGU VINODKUMAR 3 R16: ARUTLA ADITYA R17: GADIGE SRIKANTH R18: CHIKATI SRINU R19: MANDALL SATHEESH R20: NAKKA VIJAY KUMAR R21: RAPARTHI RAJU R22: JANAGARI ASHOK R23: DONTHULA RAVI R24: MOLUGU SRIKANTH KUMAR R25: YERRA RAJU R26: VENKANNA DARAVATH R27: PILLI SURYA PRAKASH R28: MOGILL RAVI R29: JADALA UPENDRABABU R30: THE STATE OF TELANGANA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT, HOME DEPARTMENT

[Respondents in Civil Appeal No._______ of 2025 @ SLP (C) No.8688/2025] R1: K. RAMESH R2: NENAVATH ASHOK NAIK R3: A. KRUSHNAIAH R4: KOLA KRISHNA R5: THE STATE OF TELANGANA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. __ OF 2025 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2025] 4 [@DIARY NO.12553/2024]2

RAMAVATH SURESH AND ORS. ETC. …APPELLANTS VERSUS PENJARLA VIJAY KUMAR AND ORS ETC. …RESPONDENTS

[Parties in C.A. No.______ of 2025 @ SLP (C) No.________ of 2025 @ D.No. 12553 of 2024 against W.A. No. 877 of 2023] A1: RAMAVATH SURESH A2: LAKAVATH JEETHENDAR A3: KONDA KOMARELLI A4: CH. KUMAR A5: SAPAVAT RAMARAO A6: RAVULA KRANTHI A7: BOBBILI PRANAY KUMAR A8: JITENDER REDDY A9: SURIGI SUDHAKAR A10: GURRAM SATEESH A11: BANDARI KALYAN A12: PERA LAXMI NARAYANA A13: NAGULA RANJITH A14: THEEGALA VENKATA SAI A15: GUNDA SRINIVAS A16: MANCHALA KARTHEEK A17: VILASAGARAPU HARISH A18: MYADARABOINA YOHAN A19: POTHARAVENI PRASHANTH A20: THEDLA RAMCHANDAR A21: K RAGHUNANDHAN GOUD 2 Directed against the Impugned Judgment in W.A. Nos.877, 972, 973, 974 & W.A.(SR) No.38269 of 2023.

5 A22: MUSINI RAMESH A23: JANAPATI RAMESH A24: BHUKYA VEERANNA A25: KESUPAKA RAGHURAM A26: PERNI NARESH A27: AMMULA RAMESH A28: BOLLOJU VENKATESWARA RAO A29: KASANI SRIKANTH A30: BANALA NARESH A31: V. SAI RAM A32: NAGARABOINA NAVEEN A33: MD. SALEEM A34: KOYYADA SATHEESH A35: JANGAM RAJU A36: G. RAJENDER GOUD A37: KORRA SURESH A38: PALLAPU SAI KUMAR A39: KAVERI BANESH A40: V. MOTILAL VERSUS R1: PENJARLA VIJAY KUMAR R2: GANDU VIKRAM GOUD R3: KAPPERA CHANDRAIAH R4: THIRUNAGARI MURALI KRISHNA R5: NALLAGONI SAGAR R6: KARIJALA ANIL R7: GUJJA MAHESH R8: THONDA MALLESH R9: KAVALI SADANANDAM R10: MUTHINENI YAKANNA 6 R11: CHITYALA NAVEEN R12: SARIKONDA GANESH KUMAR R13: KADARI SRINIVAS R14: KETHAVATH BHARATH R15: SUGURU SHIVUDU R16: PALLELA VEERAIAH R17: SHEIK RIYAZ R18: SHEIK FAYAZ R19: KETHAVATH HANUMA NAIK R20: MALLIKARJUN R21: OSMAN R22: DURGAM PRAVEEN KUMAR R23: NAREDLU VENKATESH R24: PATTIPATI MAHESH R25: DUNN SAIKUMAR R26: BATTHULA VENKATESH R27: KOLA ROHITH R28: G JAYARAMUDU R29: BANDLA SANDEEP R30: KANDRE SAI CHARAN R31: KYADASI KIRAN KUMAR R32: REDDY PAVAN R33: THE STATE OF TELANGANA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT R34: THE TELANGANA STATE LEVEL POLICE RECRUITMENT BOARD

[Parties in C.A. No. _____ of 2025 @ SLP (C) No. _____ of 2025 @ D.No.12553 of 2024 against W.A. No.972 of 2023] A1: RAMAVATH SURESH 7 A2: LAKAVATH JEETHENDAR A3: KONDA KOMARELLI A4: CH. KUMAR A5: SAPAVAT RAMARAO A6: RAVULA KRANTHI A7: BOBBILI PRANAY KUMAR A8: JITENDER REDDY A9: SURIGI SUDHAKAR A10: GURRAM SATEESH A11: BANDARI KALYAN A12: PERA LAXMI NARAYANA A13: NAGULA RANJITH A14: THEEGALA VENKATA SAI A15: GUNDA SRINIVAS A16: MANCHALA KARTHEEK A17: VILASAGARAPU HARISH A18: MYADARABOINA YOHAN A19: POTHARAVENI PRASHANTH A20: THEDLA RAMCHANDAR A21: K RAGHUNANDHAN GOUD A22: MUSINI RAMESH A23: JANAPATI RAMESH A24: BHUKYA VEERANNA A25: KESUPAKA RAGHURAM A26: PERNI NARESH A27: AMMULA RAMESH A28: BOLLOJU VENKATESWARA RAO A29: KASANI SRIKANTH A30: BANALA NARESH A31: V. SAI RAM 8 A32: NAGARABOINA NAVEEN A33: MD. SALEEM A34: KOYYADA SATHEESH A35: JANGAM RAJU A36: G. RAJENDER GOUD A37: KORRA SURESH A38: PALLAPU SAI KUMAR A39: KAVERI BANESH A40: V. MOTILAL VERSUS R1: MANGA SHIVUDU R2: K SRINIVAS R3: GUGULOTH RAMESH R4: KADEM SAIKIRAN R5: CHIKKUDU PRASAD R6: GANDA SIRI MAHESH R7: MD. MAZAHAR R8: JETTY SAI KRISHNA R9: KUMMARI KRISHNA R10: SHAIK RAFI R11: BONKURU SRINIVASULU R12: THE STATE OF TELANGANA R13: THE TELANGANA STATE LEVEL POLICE RECRUITMENT BOARD

[Parties in C.A. No._____ of 2025 @ SLP (C) No. _____ of 2025 @ D. No. 12553 of 2024 against W.A. No.973 of 2023] A1: RAMAVATH SURESH A2: LAKAVATH JEETHENDAR A3: KONDA KOMARELLI 9 A4: CH. KUMAR A5: SAPAVAT RAMARAO A6: RAVULA KRANTHI A7: BOBBILI PRANAY KUMAR A8: JITENDER REDDY A9: SURIGI SUDHAKAR A10: GURRAM SATEESH A11: BANDARI KALYAN A12: PERA LAXMI NARAYANA A13: NAGULA RANJITH A14: THEEGALA VENKATA SAI A15: GUNDA SRINIVAS A16: MANCHALA KARTHEEK A17: VILASAGARAPU HARISH A18: MYADARABOINA YOHAN A19: POTHARAVENI PRASHANTH A20: THEDLA RAMCHANDAR A21: K RAGHUNANDHAN GOUD A22: MUSINI RAMESH A23: JANAPATI RAMESH A24: BHUKYA VEERANNA A25: KESUPAKA RAGHURAM A26: PERNI NARESH A27: AMMULA RAMESH A28: BOLLOJU VENKATESWARA RAO A29: KASANI SRIKANTH A30: BANALA NARESH A31: V. SAI RAM A32: NAGARABOINA NAVEEN A33: MD. SALEEM 10 A34: KOYYADA SATHEESH A35: JANGAM RAJU A36: G. RAJENDER GOUD A37: KORRA SURESH A38: PALLAPU SAI KUMAR A39: KAVERI BANESH A40: V. MOTILAL VERSUS R1: GUMMA GANGARAJU R2: THE STATE OF TELANGANA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT R3: THE TELANGANA STATE LEVEL POLICE RECRUITMENT BOARD

[Parties in C.A. No. _____ of 2025 @ SLP (C) No. _____ of 2025 @ D. No. 12553 of 2024 against W.A. No.974 of 2023] A1: RAMAVATH SURESH A2: LAKAVATH JEETHENDAR A3: KONDA KOMARELLI A4: CH. KUMAR A5: SAPAVAT RAMARAO A6: RAVULA KRANTHI A7: BOBBILI PRANAY KUMAR A8: JITENDER REDDY A9: SURIGI SUDHAKAR A10: GURRAM SATEESH A11: BANDARI KALYAN A12: PERA LAXMI NARAYANA A13: NAGULA RANJITH A14: THEEGALA VENKATA SAI A15: GUNDA SRINIVAS 11 A16: MANCHALA KARTHEEK A17: VILASAGARAPU HARISH A18: MYADARABOINA YOHAN A19: POTHARAVENI PRASHANTH A20: THEDLA RAMCHANDAR A21: K RAGHUNANDHAN GOUD A22: MUSINI RAMESH A23: JANAPATI RAMESH A24: BHUKYA VEERANNA A25: KESUPAKA RAGHURAM A26: PERNI NARESH A27: AMMULA RAMESH A28: BOLLOJU VENKATESWARA RAO A29: KASANI SRIKANTH A30: BANALA NARESH A31: V. SAI RAM A32: NAGARABOINA NAVEEN A33: MD. SALEEM A34: KOYYADA SATHEESH A35: JANGAM RAJU A36: G. RAJENDER GOUD A37: KORRA SURESH A38: PALLAPU SAI KUMAR A39: KAVERI BANESH A40: V. MOTILAL VERSUS R1: MOHAMMAD SADDAM HUSSAIN R2: PESARI KARTHIK R3: BANOTHU SANTHOSH KUMAR R4: KUNCHAM ADITYA 12 R5: ANKURI LAVAKUMAR R6: SOMIDI VENKATESH R7: KETHAVATH HANMANTHU R8: PANDYALA RAMESH R9: GUNDU NAGENDRABABU R10: SAPAVAT GOPAL R11: ANUPATI NARESH R12: DHURUMUTLA MADHU R13: KISHAN VADTHYA R14: BARLA ANIL KUMAR R15: CHINAPANGU VINODKUMAR R16: ARUTLA ADITYA R17: GADIGE SRIKANTH R18: CHIKATI SRINU R19: MANDALL SATHEESH R20: NAKKA VIJAY KUMAR R21: RAPARTHI RAJU R22: JANAGARI ASHOK R23: DONTHULA RAVI R24: MOLUGU SRIKANTH KUMAR R25: YERRA RAJU R26: VENKANNA DARAVATH R27: PILLI SURYA PRAKASH R28: MOGILL RAVI R29: JADALA UPENDRABABU R30: THE STATE OF TELANGANA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT, HOME DEPARTMENT R31: THE TELANGANA STATE LEVEL POLICE RECRUITMENT BOARD

13 [Parties in C.A. No. _____ of 2025 @ SLP (C) No. _____ of 2025 @ D. No. 12553 of 2024 against W.A. No.38269 of 2023] A1: RAMAVATH SURESH A2: LAKAVATH JEETHENDAR A3: KONDA KOMARELLI A4: CH. KUMAR A5: SAPAVAT RAMARAO A6: RAVULA KRANTHI A7: BOBBILI PRANAY KUMAR A8: JITENDER REDDY A9: SURIGI SUDHAKAR A10: GURRAM SATEESH A11: BANDARI KALYAN A12: PERA LAXMI NARAYANA A13: NAGULA RANJITH A14: THEEGALA VENKATA SAI A15: GUNDA SRINIVAS A16: MANCHALA KARTHEEK A17: VILASAGARAPU HARISH A18: MYADARABOINA YOHAN A19: POTHARAVENI PRASHANTH A20: THEDLA RAMCHANDAR A21: K RAGHUNANDHAN GOUD A22: MUSINI RAMESH A23: JANAPATI RAMESH A24: BHUKYA VEERANNA A25: KESUPAKA RAGHURAM A26: PERNI NARESH A27: AMMULA RAMESH A28: BOLLOJU VENKATESWARA RAO 14 A29: KASANI SRIKANTH A30: BANALA NARESH A31: V. SAI RAM A32: NAGARABOINA NAVEEN A33: MD. SALEEM A34: KOYYADA SATHEESH A35: JANGAM RAJU A36: G. RAJENDER GOUD A37: KORRA SURESH A38: PALLAPU SAI KUMAR A39: KAVERI BANESH A40: V. MOTILAL VERSUS R1: K. RAMESH R2: NENAVATH ASHOK NAIK R3: A. KRUSHNAIAH R4: KOLA KRISHNA R5: THE STATE OF TELANGANA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT R6: THE TELANGANA STATE LEVEL POLICE RECRUITMENT BOARD

J U D G M E N T

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.

Delay condoned in Diary No.12553/2024.

15

2. I.A. No.74279/2024 seeking permission to file Special Leave Petitions

is allowed in Diary No.12553/2024.

3. Leave granted in all petitions.

4. By way of the instant appeals, challenge is laid to the common Final

Judgment and Order dated 03.10.2023 in WA No.877/2023 (against WP

No.8571/2023), WA No.972/2023 (against WP No.8927/2023), WA

No.973/2023 (against WP No.2365 of 2023), WA No.974/2023 (against WP

No.6914/2023) and WA(SR) No.38269/2023 (against WP No.8988/2023)

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Judgment’) passed by a learned

Division Bench of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’), whereby the Writ Appeals filed

by the Appellant have been dismissed, affirming the Common Order dated

30.06.2023 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court in Writ

Petitions No.8571, 8927, 2365, 6914 and 8988 of 2023. Though from the

record it transpires that Writ Petitions No.7834, 7872, 8345, 8354, 8360,

8368, 8390, 8566, 8825, 8856 and 8859 of 2023 were also disposed of in

similar terms as Writ Petitions No.8571, 8927, 2365, 6914 and 8988 of

2023 by the Single Judge, but writ appeals thereagainst were not preferred.

16 The reasons, we have been informed by learned counsel for the Appellant,

are that before such appeals could be filed, the Judgment impugned was

rendered by the Division Bench.

5. The first batch of Civil Appeals arising from SLP (Civil) Nos.8684-

8688/2024 is directed against the Impugned Judgment of the Division

Bench affirming the Judgment passed by the Single Judge, by which the

underlying writ petitions filed by persons who claimed eligibility on the

ground that though their driving licences 3 had expired within a period which

was two years prior to the date of Notification in continuity but who had got

the same renewed after some gap, were allowed, holding them eligible for

the recruitment process in question, whereas the Civil Appeals emanating

from Diary No.12553 of 2024 are by persons challenging the Impugned

Judgment, who possessed valid driving licences continuously for a period

of two years prior to the date of the Notification(s), without any intervening

disqualification/expiry.

3 We must clarify here that we have utilised both variants of the word in question, that is, ‘ licence’ as also ‘license’ and their plurals, in this Judgment.

17

6. As the core issue involved is the same, these Civil Appeals are dealt

with collectively. For the sake of convenience, facts in the Civil Appeal

arising out of SLP (C) Nos.8684-8688 of 2024 are noticed.

FACTUAL OVERVIEW:

7. Briefly stated, the material facts are that on 25.04.2022 the

Appellant/Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board issued a

Recruitment Notification to fill up 100 posts of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee

(SCT) Police Constable (Drivers) (Men) in the Police Transport

Organization. The Appellant issued another Notification dated 20.05.2022

to fill up 225 posts of Driver Operator in the Telangana State Disaster

Response and Fire Services Department. In all, 325 posts of Drivers, as

above, were notified to be recruited. One of the essential qualifications

stipulated in the Notification dated 25.04.2022 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

18 one must have possessed valid HMV Licence continuously for a period of

two years and above as on date of the Notification.

8. 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.

9. 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 the private

respondents approached the High Court by filing Writ Petition No.8571 of

2023 and analogous cases. The learned Single Judge by interim Orders

dated 13.03.2023 and 28.03.2023 directed the Appellant to allow the

private 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.

19

10. On 30.06.2023, the learned Single Judge allowed Writ Petition

No.8571 of 2023 and analogous cases 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 learned

Single Judge directed the Appellant to consider the candidatures of the

private respondents by treating them as having valid driving licences for a

continuous period of two years and to declare their results and then to

proceed further in the selection process, in accordance with merit and in

accordance with the terms and conditions as stipulated in the Notifications.

11. Against the Final Judgment/Order of the learned Single Judge dated

30.06.2023, the Appellant filed Writ Appeals No.877/2023, 972/2023,

973/2023, 974/2023 and WA(SR) No.38269/2023 before the Division

Bench. By way of the Impugned Judgment, the Division Bench dismissed

the Writ Appeals filed by appellant.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT:

12. Learned senior counsel for the Appellant submitted that, pre-

amendment, the proviso to Section 14 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

20 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1988 Act’) provided that the licence shall

continue to be effective for 30 days after expiry. Further, Section 15(1) of

the 1988 Act provided that if an application for renewal is made within 30

days after the expiry of the licence, it may be renewed from the date of

expiry. However, the first proviso to Section 15(1) of the 1988 Act stated

that if the application was made after 30 days from the date of expiry, then

the renewal shall be from the date of such renewal.

13. Learned senior counsel contended that the 1988 Act was amended

by Parliament by passing Act No.32 of 2019 being The Motor Vehicles

(Amendment) Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Amendment Act,

2019’). Relevant provisions of the Amendment Act, 2019 came into force on

01.09.2019, having been published in the Official Gazette on 09.08.2019,

whereby the proviso to Section 15(1) of the 1988 Act was amended to the

effect that the renewal shall be deemed to be effective from the date of the

renewal and not from the date of expiry, in the event the application for

renewal is made either one year prior to the date of its expiry or within one

year after the date of its expiry.

21

14. Learned senior counsel submitted that if the application for renewal is

made one year prior to the date of its expiry or within one year after the

date of its expiry, the renewal date shall be deemed to be the date of actual

renewal. It was submitted that through the Amendment Act, 2019, the

Legislature has removed the grace period of 30 days, as noted

hereinbefore. The proviso to Section 14 of the 1988 Act, which stated that

the licence shall continue to be effective for 30 days after its expiry was

deleted by the Amendment Act, 2019. Therefore, the post-amendment

language adopted by the Legislature is clear and unambiguous; that the

actual date of renewal shall be the effective date in all cases where the

application is made either one year prior to date of expiry or within one year

after the date of expiry, with the only distinction that if the application to

renew the licence is made after one year from the date of its expiry, the

authority shall refuse to renew the licence, unless fresh test of competence

is undertaken by the applicant concerned.

15. Learned senior counsel for the Appellant argued that the Amendment

Act, 2019 does not extend the 30 days grace-period, which was earlier

provided, to one year. In fact, through the amendment, the Legislature has

completely changed the language with the intent not to allow any grace

22 period for drivers to drive with expired licences. Therefore, to construe the

one-year period in the amended Section 15 of the 1988 Act as a liberty to

drive even after expiry of licence is a flawed and distorted interpretation of

law. It was urged that adopting such interpretation would be against the

legislative intent.

16. Learned senior counsel emphasised that in the pre-amendment

situation, there existed a grace period of 30 days after the expiry of the

driving licence in terms of the proviso to Section 14 of the 1988 Act.

Further, if the renewal application was made before 30 days from the expiry

of the licence, the date of renewal may be counted from the date of expiry,

however, if the application is made after 30 days from the date of expiry of

the licence, the renewal was deemed valid from the date of renewal.

Reliance was placed on the following cases:

a) Order dated 24.04.2025 in The Divisional Manager New India

Assurance Company Ltd. v Shaanabasappa & Ors., Special Leave

Petition (Civil) Nos.19830-19832 of 2022 [passed by this Court]4:

‘7. The provision of Section 15(1) of the Act is very clear and it provides for the renewal of driving licenses. It lays down that a licensing authority may, on an application made to it, renew a driving license issued under the Act from date from its expiry. But the first proviso to the 4 Where one of us, Hon. S. V. N. Bhatti, J., was part of the coram.

23 above provision clearly states that where application for renewal of a license is not made within the prescribed period of 30 days or is made after the expiry of 30 days, the driving license shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal.’

b) Ram Babu Tiwari v United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2008) 8 SCC

165:

‘16. Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for renewal of a driving license. Sub-section (1) of Section 15 and the first proviso appended thereto read as under:

“15. Renewal of driving licenses— (1) Any licensing authority may, on application made to it, renew a driving license issued under the provisions of this Act with effect from the date of its expiry:

Provided that in any case where the application for the renewal of a licence is made more than thirty days after the date of its expiry, the driving licence shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal: Provided further that where the application is for the renewal of a licence to drive a transport vehicle or where in any other case the applicant has attained the age of forty years, the same shall be accompanied by a medical certificate in the same form and in the same manner as is referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 8, and the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 8 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to every such case as they apply in relation to a learner's licence.” xxx

18. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that only in the event an application for renewal of licence is filed within a period of 30 days from the date of expiry thereof, the same would be renewed automatically which means that even if an accident had taken place within the 24 aforementioned period, the driver may be held to be possessing a valid licence. The proviso appended to sub-section (1) of Section 15, however, clearly states that the driving licence shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal in the event the application for renewal of a licence is made more than 30 days after the date of its expiry. It is, therefore, evident that as on renewal of the licence on such terms the driver of the vehicle cannot be said to be holding a valid licence, the insurer would not be liable to indemnify the insured.

19. The second proviso appended to sub-section (4) of Section 15 is of no assistance to the appellant. It merely enables the licensing authority to take a further test of competent driving and passing thereof to its satisfaction within the meaning of sub-section (3) of Section 9. It does not say that the renewal would be automatic. It is, therefore, a case where a breach of the contract of insurance is established. This aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court in National Insurance Co.

Ltd. v. Kusum Rai [(2006) 4 SCC 250: (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 214] holding: (SCC p. 254, para 11) “11. It has not been disputed before us that the vehicle was being used as a taxi. It was, therefore, a commercial vehicle. The driver of the said vehicle, thus, was required to hold an appropriate licence therefor. Ram Lal who allegedly was driving the said vehicle at the relevant time, as noticed hereinbefore, was holder of a licence to drive a light motor vehicle only. He did not possess any licence to drive a commercial vehicle. Evidently, therefore, there was a breach of condition of the contract of insurance. The appellant, therefore, could raise the said defence.” It was furthermore held: (SCC p. 255, para 14) “14. This Court in Swaran Singh [(2004) 3 SCC 297: 2004 SCC (Cri) 733: AIR 2004 SC 1531] clearly laid down that the liability of the insurance company vis-à-vis the owner would depend upon several factors. The owner 25 would be liable for payment of compensation in a case where the driver was not having a licence at all. It was the obligation on the part of the owner to take adequate care to see that the driver had an appropriate licence to drive the vehicle.” It was opined: (SCC p. 256, para 16) “16. In a case of this nature, therefore, the owner of a vehicle cannot contend that he has no liability to verify the fact as to whether the driver of the vehicle possessed a valid licence or not.”’

c) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Suresh Chandra Aggarwal, (2009)

15 SCC 761:

‘12. Before we deal with the rival contentions, it would be appropriate to briefly refer to the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”). Section 3(1) of the Act inter alia stipulates that:

“3. Necessity for driving licence.—(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle;” xxx

16. Special Condition 5 reads as follows:

“5. Persons or classes of persons entitled to drive.—

(a) The insured,

(b) Any other person who is driving on the insured's order or with his permission:

Provided that the person driving holds or had held and has not been disqualified from holding an effective driving licence with all the required endorsements thereon as per the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made thereunder for the time being in force to drive

26 the category of motor vehicle insured hereunder.” (emphasis supplied) It is manifest that the said condition contemplates that apart from the insured, any other person, authorised by the insured, could also drive the vehicle provided the person driving the vehicle “holds or had held and has not been disqualified” from holding an effective driving licence.’

d) Ishwar Chandra v Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2007) 10 SCC 650:

‘9. From a bare perusal of the said provision, it would appear that the licence is renewed in terms of the said Act and the rules framed thereunder. The proviso appended to Section 15(1) of the Act in no uncertain terms states that whereas the original licence granted despite expiry remains valid for a period of 30 days from the date of expiry, if any application for renewal thereof is filed thereafter, the same would be renewed from the date of its renewal. The accident took place 28-4-1995. As on the said date, the renewal application had not been filed, the driver did not have a valid license on the date when the vehicle met with the accident.’

17. Learned senior counsel summed up by canvassing that the

Notifications mandated that the candidate-drivers had to possess driving

licences continuously for the immediate previous two years from the dates

of the Notifications. As such, contended learned senior counsel, non-

renewal of licences by the applicants during the said time and the existence

of a time-gap between expiry and renewal made it apparent that the

applicants did not possess eligibility, in terms of the Notifications. It was

prayed that the appeals be allowed.

27 SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS:

18. Learned senior counsel for the private respondents, per contra,

contended that a perusal of the Statement of Objects and Reasons 5 of the

Amendment Act, 2019 would make it very clear that the law-makers were

conscious of the fact that delays occur in issuing driving licence and its

renewal. In order to overcome the same, it was submitted, a liberal view

5 ‘The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act), was enacted with a view to consolidate and amend the laws relating to motor vehicles. The Act was enacted to give effect to the suggestions made by the Supreme Court in M.K. Kunhimohammed Vs P. A. Ahmedkutty (1987) 4 SCC 284.

2. The Act was amended several times to adapt to the technological upgradation emerging in road transport, passenger and freight movement and in motor vehicle management. With rapidly increasing motorisation, India is facing an increasing burden of road traffic injuries and fatalities. The emotional and social trauma caused to the family which loses its bread winner, cannot be quantified. India is signatory to the Brasilia Declaration and is committed to reduce the number of road accident fatality by fifty per cent. by the year 2020. The road transport sector also plays a major role in the economy of the country.

3. Numerous representations and recommendations in the form of grievances and suggestions from various stakeholders have been received in the Ministry, citing cases of increase in road accidents, delay in issue of driving licences, the disregard of traffic rules and regulations, etc. Therefore, in order to improve road safety and transport system, certain amendments are required to be made in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to address safety and efficiency issues in the transport sector.

4. In view of the above, it has become necessary to amend certain provisions of the said Act. The proposed Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill, 2019 seeks to address the issues relating to road safety, citizen facilitation, strengthening public transport, automation and computerisation.

5. The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill, 2019, inter alia, provides for the following, namely:—

(a) to facilitate grant of online learning licence;

(b) to replace the existing provisions of insurance with simplified provisions in order to provide expeditious help to accident victims and their families;

(c) to increase the time limit for renewal of driving licence from one month to one year before and after the expiry date;

(d) to increase the period for renewal of transport licence from three years to five years;

(e) to enable the licensing authority to grant licence even to the differently abled persons;

(f) to enable the States to promote public transport, rural transport and last mile connectivity by relaxing any of the provisions of the Act pertaining to permits;

(g) to increase the fines and penalties for violation of provisions of the Act; and

(h) to make a provision for protection of Good Samaritans.

6. The Notes on clauses explain in detail the various provisions contained in the Bill.

7. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objectives.’ (sic)

28 was taken by the law-makers and provision to increase the time limit for

renewal of driving licence from one month to six months before and after

the expiry date was taken into consideration and accordingly, the (earlier)

‘thirty days’ prescribed in the unamended Section 15 of the 1988 Act was

enhanced to ‘one year’ for renewal of driving licence. The learned Single

Judge has taken these factors into account and rightly concluded that the

private respondents were holding valid driving licences as on the date of

the said Notifications. Thus, the Writ Petitions were rightly allowed in favour

of the private respondents.

19. Learned senior counsel argued that since the private respondents,

who were having valid driving licences continuously had applied for

renewal thereof within one year of their driving licences having expired, the

time-gap in renewals ranging from 1 day to 294 days, all the private

respondents’ applications for renewal were within the period of one year

from the date of expiry in accordance with Section 15 of the 1988 Act, as

amended by the Amendment Act, 2019.

20. Learned senior counsel stressed that Clause 19(iv) of the Notification

dated 25.04.2022, stipulates that the candidates who qualify in the physical

29 efficiency test are to subsequently appear in and qualify a driving test. The

Chairman of the Appellant was to constitute a committee for conducting this

Test with Officers from Police Transport Organization, Road Transport

Corporation and Road Transport Authority. It specifies that candidates must

clear the test by obtaining minimum 50 out of 100 marks, which itself

reflects that irrespective of a candidate already holding a valid continuous

driving licence, the candidate must again qualify in the driving test. The

private respondents possessed driving experience for a considerable

period and having such experience, the Appellant ought not have rejected

the candidature of the private respondents at the very threshold. It was

urged that the appeals be visited with dismissals, upholding the Impugned

Judgment.

SUBMISSIONS BY THE PRIVATE APPELLANTS IN THE CIVIL

APPEALS EMANATING FROM DIARY NO.12553 OF 2024:

21. The private appellants adopted the contentions urged by the

Appellant/Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board.

ANALYSIS, REASONING AND CONCLUSION:

30

22. Having heard learned counsel for the contesting parties, perused the

records and considered the matters in depth, we are of the considered view

that the Judgment impugned warrants interference. We are, in the instant

batch of appeals, concerned with as to how the technical qualification with

regard to possessing either a LMV (Transport with Badge Number) or HMV

Licence, or both put together, continuously for a period of full two years and

above as on the date of the Notifications, is to be construed.

23. The Appellant’s categoric stand is that the stipulations in the

Notifications must be read to mean that the person/candidate possessed

the licence uninterruptedly without any break for at least two years prior to

the date(s) of the Notifications viz. 25.04.2022 and 20.05.2022. The

subsequent Notification dated 20.05.2022 is related to Drivers in the

Telangana State Disaster Response and Fire Services Department and the

technical qualification is possession of a valid HMV Licence continuously

for a period of two years and above as on the date of the Notification,

whereas in the Notification dated 25.04.2022, which was for the post of

Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT) Police Constable (Drivers) (Men) in Police

31 Transport Organization, where it was either LMV (Transport with Badge

number) or HMV or both.

24. At this juncture, it is relevant to indicate that both sides are ad idem

on the issue that the licence possessed must be valid continuously for at

least two years prior to the date(s) of the Notifications and continuing.

However, the difference of opinion between both sides is whether a licence

which may have expired within the last two years followed by renewal

would automatically result in a situation, though deemed, where despite the

licence getting renewed post-facto, but from the date of its expiry, would

make it continuous in nature for the purposes of the recruitment in question

or otherwise. Thus, the core issue would be as to whether, during the

period when the licence expired and admittedly was renewed

subsequently, the said period should be condoned, upon renewal, so as to

bring it within the criterion of being a continuous licence for a full period of

two years prior to the date(s) of the Notifications.

25. It is important to quote the requirement, as set out in the Notifications

dated 25.04.2022 and 20.05.2022:

I. Notification dated 25.04.2022:

32 ‘18. ELIGIBILITY CONDITIONS (CANDIDATES TO ENSURE THEIR ELIGIBILITY FOR THE EXAMINATION) … D. Educational Qualification:

… iii. For Post Code No. 36:

… b. Technical Qualification: Must have possessed either Light Motor Vehicle (Transport with Badge Number) or HMV License, or both put together, continuously for a period of full two years and above as on date of this Notification.

Candidate should furnish the Driving Licence information (Grant of issue of Driving Licence), issued by the Licensing Authority of the RTA concerned along with the Application Form.’

II. Notification dated 20.05.2022:

‘16. ELIGIBILITY CONDITIONS (CANDIDATES TO ENSURE THEIR ELIGIBILITY FOR THE EXAMINATION) … D. Educational Qualification: …

b. Technical Qualification: Must have possessed valid HMV License continuously for a period of two years and above as on date of this Notification. Note: Candidate should furnish the Driving Licence information (Grant of issue of Driving Licence), issued by the Licensing Authority of the RTA concerned along with the Application Form.’

26. Sections 14 and 15 of the 1988 Act, before and after the Amendment

Act, 2019, are reproduced hereunder:

33

(Pre-Amendment Act, 2019) (Post-Amendment Act, 2019) Section 14. Currency of licences Section 14. Currency of licences to drive motor vehicles. — to drive motor vehicles. — (1) A learner’s licence issued under (1) A learner’s licence issued under this Act shall, subject to the other this Act shall, subject to the other provisions of this Act, be effective provisions of this Act, be effective for for a period of six months from the a period of six months from the date date of issue of the licence. of issue of the licence.

(2) A driving licence issued or (2) A driving licence issued or renewed under this Act shall, — renewed under this Act shall, —

(a) in the case of a licence to drive (a) in the case of a licence to drive a a transport vehicle, be effective for transport vehicle, be effective for a a period of three years: period of five years:

Provided that in the case of licence Provided that in the case of licence to drive a transport vehicle carrying to drive a transport vehicle carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous goods of dangerous or hazardous nature be effective for a period of nature be effective for a period of one year and renewal thereof shall three years and renewal thereof be subject to the condition that shall be subject to such conditions the driver undergoes one day as the Central Government may refresher course of the prescribe; and prescribed syllabus; and

(b) in the case of any other licence,

(b) in the case of any other licence, subject to such conditions as the — Central Government may

(i) if the person obtaining the prescribe, if the person obtaining licence, either originally or on the licence, either originally or on renewal thereof, has not attained renewal thereof, — the age of fifty years on the date of (i) has not attained the age of thirty issue or, as the case may be, years on the date of issue or, renewal thereof renewal thereof, be effective until (A) be effective for a period of the date on which such person twenty years from the date of attains the age of forty years; or such issue or renewal; or (ii) has attained the age of thirty (B) until the date on which such years but has not attained the age person attains the age of fifty of fifty years on the date of issue years, whichever is earlier; or, renewal thereof, be effective

(ii) if the person referred to in for a period of ten years from the 34 sub-clause (i), has attained the date of such issue or renewal; or age of fifty years on the date of (iii) has attained the age of fifty issue or as the case may be, years but has not attained the age renewal thereof, be effective, on of fifty-five years on the date of payment of such fee as may be issue or, renewal thereof, be prescribed, for a period of five effective until the date on which years from the date of such issue such person attains the age of or renewal: sixty years; or

(iv) has attained the age of fifty-

Provided that every driving five years on the date of issue or licence shall, notwithstanding its as the case may be, renewal expiry under this sub-section, thereof, be effective for a period continue to be effective for a of five years from the date of such period of thirty days from such issue or renewal.

expiry.

[Proviso omitted by the Amendment Act, 2019.]

Section 15. Renewal of driving Section 15. Renewal of driving licences. — licences. — (1) Any licensing authority may, on (1) Any licensing authority may, on application made to it, renew a application made to it, renew a driving licence issued under the driving licence issued under the provisions of this Act with effect provisions of this Act with effect from from the date of its expiry: the date of its expiry:

Provided that in any case where the Provided that in any case where the application for the renewal of a application for the renewal of a licence is made more than thirty licence is made either one year days after the date of its expiry, prior to date of its expiry or within

the driving licence shall be renewed one year after the date of its with effect from the date of its expiry, the driving licence shall be renewal: renewed with effect from the date of its renewal:

Provided further that where the application is for the renewal of a Provided further that where the licence to drive a transport vehicle application is for the renewal of a or where in any other case the licence to drive a transport vehicle or applicant has attained the age of where in any other case the forty years, the same shall be applicant has attained the age of 35 accompanied by a medical forty years, the same shall be certificate in the same form and in accompanied by a medical certificate the same manner as is referred to in the same form and in the same in sub- section (3) of section 8, and manner as is referred to in sub- the provisions of sub-section (4) of section (3) of section 8, and the section 8 shall, so far as may be, provisions of sub-section (4) of apply in relation to every such case section 8 shall, so far as may be, as they apply in relation to a apply in relation to every such case learner’s licence. as they apply in relation to a learner’s licence.

(2) An application for the renewal of a driving licence shall be made in (2) An application for the renewal of such form and accompanied by a driving licence shall be made in such documents as may be such form and accompanied by such prescribed by the Central documents as may be prescribed by Government. the Central Government.

(3) Where an application for the (3) Where an application for the renewal of a driving licence is made renewal of a driving licence is made previous to, or not more than thirty previous to, or not more than one days after the date of its expiry, year after the date of its expiry, the fee payable for such renewal the fee payable for such renewal shall be such as may be prescribed shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government in this by the Central Government in this behalf. behalf.

(4) Where an application for the (4) Where an application for the renewal of a driving licence is made renewal of a driving licence is made more than thirty days after the more than one year after the date date of its expiry, the fee payable of its expiry, the fee payable for for such renewal shall be such such renewal shall be such amount amount as may be prescribed by as may be prescribed by the Central the Central Government: Government:

(emphasis supplied)

27. The relevant change brought about in Section 14 of 1988 Act by the

Amendment Act, 2019 is that the proviso (highlighted supra) has been 36 omitted by the amendment. In Section 15 of the 1988 Act, by the

Amendment Act, 2019, the first proviso to sub-section (1) has been

modified. Earlier, in the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 15, after

the words, ‘licence is made’, the words ‘more than 30 days after the date of

its expiry’ occurred, which now has been changed to ‘either one year prior

to the date of its expiry or within one year after the date of its expiry.’

Another change effected is that in sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the 1988

Act, in place of the words ‘thirty days’, ‘one year’ has been substituted.

28. The last proviso to Section 14 of the 1988 Act which read ‘Provided

that every driving licence shall, notwithstanding its expiry under this sub-

section, continue to be effective for a period of 30 days from such expiry’

stood omitted by the Amendment Act, 2019.

29. Thus, going by the plain words of the statute, as is the first rule of

interpretation, it would mean that 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.

37

30. Moving on, Section 15 of the 1988 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 1988 Act, as it stands

now, the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 15, gives a window to a

person for renewal of his existing licence, which starts one year prior to the

date of the expiry of the licence and continues for one year post-expiry.

Earlier, before the Amendment Act, 2019, this period used to be only within

30 days of the date of expiry. Moreover, the stipulation in the said proviso

requiring the licence to be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal

remains unchanged. 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.

31. When Sections 14 and 15 of the 1988 Act are harmoniously

construed, keeping in mind the principles restated in A Raja v D Kumar,

2025 SCC OnLine SC 10336, it is clear, to our minds, that a licence no 6 ‘41. In Poppatlal Shah v. State of Madras, (1953) 1 SCC 492, it was held ‘It is a settled rule of construction that to ascertain the legislative intent, all the constituent parts of a statute are to be taken together and each word, phrase or sentence is to be considered in the light of the general purpose and object of the Act itself.’ We are quite cognizant that it is not for us to add or read words into a statute, nor should we venture into the legislative arena, in respectful concurrence with B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikal, (2011) 4 SCC 266; Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2017) 14 SCC 663,

38 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. In

this regard, State of Uttar Pradesh v Malik Zarid Khalid, (1988) 1 SCC

145 is instructive:

‘10. We are unable to accept the appellant's contention. The interpretation placed by the Full Bench of the High Court on Section 3(o) equates the position under the statute after the amendment of 1976 to the position both as it stood prior to the 1976 amendment and also as it stood after the 1983 Ordinance. Such an approach fails to give any effect at all to the change in language deliberately introduced by the 1976 amendment. No doubt, prior to the amendment, only buildings of which the government was owner or landlord were excluded from the Act. But the legislature clearly intended a departure from the earlier position. If the intention was merely to extend the benefit to premises owned or let out by public corporations, it could have been achieved by simply adding a reference to such corporations in Section 2(1)(a) and (b) as they stood earlier. Reading Section 2(1)(a) and (b) as they stood before amendment and the definition in Section 3(o) side by side, the departure in language is so wide and clear that it is impossible to ignore the same and hold that the new definition was just a re-enactment of the old exemption. The exclusion was earlier restricted to buildings owned by the government and buildings taken on lease or requisitioned by government and granted by it by creating a tenancy in favour of someone. The amendment significantly omitted the crucial words present in the earlier legislation which had the effect of restricting the exclusion to tenancies created by the and; DDA v. Virender Lal Bahri, (2020) 15 SCC 328.’ (emphasis supplied)

39 government, either as owner or as landlord. Full effect must be given to the new definition in Section 3(o) and to the conscious departure in language in reframing the exclusion.

xxx

14. It is true that there are situations in which courts are compelled to subordinate the plain meaning of statutory language. Not unoften, courts do read down the plain language of a provision or give it a restricted meaning, where, to do otherwise may be clearly opposed to the object and scheme of the Act or may lead to an absurd, illogical or unconstitutional result. But we think that this mode of construction is not appropriate in the context of the present legislation for a number of reasons. In the first place, such an interpretation does not fit into the legislative history we have traced earlier. It does not explain why the legislature should have, while enacting the 1976 amendment, omitted certain operative words and used certain wider words instead. As we have pointed out earlier, if the idea had only been to add to the exclusion buildings owned or let out by public sector corporations, that result could have been achieved by a minor amendment to Section 2(1)(a) as it stood earlier. A conscious and glaring departure from the previous language must be given its due significance. Secondly, the Rent Act is a piece of legislation which imposes certain restrictions on a landlord and confers certain protections on a tenant. It could well have been the intention of the legislature that the government, local bodies and public sector corporations should be free not only from the restrictions they may incur as landlords but also that they need not have the protection given to other ordinary tenants. To say that the legislature considered the government qua landlord to be in a class of its own and hence entitled to immunity from the restrictions of the Act but that, qua tenant, it should be on the same footing as other tenants will be an interpretation which smacks of discrimination. The legislature could have certainly intended to say that the government, whether landlord or tenant, should be outside the Act. Thirdly, 40 while it is true that the result of the interpretation we favour would be to facilitate easy eviction of government, local authorities and public corporations, there is nothing per se wrong about it because, with their vast resources or capacity to augment their resources, these bodies would not be in as helpless a position as ordinary tenants for whose benefit the legislation is primarily intended. On the other hand, the ultimate result of the interpretation accepted by the Full Bench will be to practically deny a landlord, who has given his premises on rent to these bodies, any remedy to get back possession of his premises. The contingencies for which eviction is provided for in Section 20 are hardly likely to arise in the case of such tenants; Section 21(1)(a) is taken out by Section 21(8); and, virtually, the only ground on which eviction can be sought by a landlord of such a building against such a tenant, on the interpretation urged by the petitioner, would be the one contained in Section 21(1)(b). It is debatable whether the legislature could have contemplated such a situation either.

Fourthly, in this case, the legislature has applied its mind to the situation more than once subsequently. If its intention in carrying out the amendment had been misunderstood by the High Court or found ambiguous, the legislature was expected to rectify the situation by a piece of retrospective or declaratory legislation. The 1977 Ordinance was, but the later Ordinances and the 1985 Act are not, of this nature. They neither are, nor purport to be, declaratory or retrospective from 5-7-1976. At least, if the 1985 Act had been made retrospective from 5-7-1976, one could have thought it was a clarificatory piece of legislation. But the legislature has advisedly given these enactments effect only from 18-5- 1983. This means that the amendment of 1976 was intended to be effective between 5-7-1976 and 18-5- 1983 and it also means that the amendment of 1983 onwards is not intended to be read back for that period. Lastly, in any event, the interpretation given by us will create no lasting difficulties for the government and other organisations which are tenants only, since after 18-5- 41 1983 they will be in a position to claim all the immunities available to other tenants under the Act.’ (emphasis supplied)

32. 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. 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, as

is the case herein. Thus, on an overall consideration, the

42 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.

33. The Act as it stands now clearly stipulates that from the date of

expiry of licence, its holder is barred under law from driving. 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. For instance,

even if the licence is continuously valid for more than two years preceding

the date of Notifications, there can be a situation where the holder of the

licence may be inflicted with debarment/suspension of licence, in the

43 context of Sections 19 to 23 of 1988 Act, for a period of time. Stricto sensu,

the same licence, once such period of time elapses, would be valid but as

per the Notifications, the said person would be ineligible to even apply for

the posts of driver, if such debarment/suspension was within two years

from the date(s) of the Notifications. Thus, we have no doubt in mind that

for the term ‘continuously’ for the previous two years has to be given a

straight-forward interpretation as per the literal meaning showing the actual

legal and uninterrupted capacity of the person concerned for driving for at

least two years continuously prior to the date(s) of the Notifications. We

need not look too far or delve too deep for the meaning of the term

‘continuously’, as for the purposes of the present adjudication, it would

suffice to refer to Black’s Law Dictionary, Revised 4 th Edition, 1968 at Page

393, which defines the said term as ‘Uninterruptedly; in unbroken

sequence; without intermission or cessation; without intervening time; with

continuity or continuation’.

34. A contention was urged on behalf of the respondents that even after

qualifying the physical proficiency test, candidates will be required to

appear and qualify the driving test and thus, when their

proficiency/efficiency in actual driving is being tested by conducting a

driving test, the requirement of the person being a fit and capable driver is

44 already taken care by the driving test. It was contended that, as such, the

said stipulation be read to mean that the requirement of possessing a

driving licence for a period of at least two years prior to the date of the

Notification continuously would include persons, who after a break in

renewal upon expiry of the licence, later got their licences renewed, with

effect from the dates of expiry. We are afraid such contention cannot be

accepted. 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.

Profitable reference can be made to Rakesh Kumar Sharma v State (NCT

of Delhi), (2013) 11 SCC 587 and Sudhir Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, 7 ‘22. It also needs to be noted that like the present appellant there could be large number of candidates who were not eligible as per the requirement of rules/advertisement since they did not possess the required eligibility on the last date of submission of the application forms. Granting any benefit to the

45 (2024) 12 SCC 6478 in this context. Secondly, the driving test is by way of

abundant caution to verify and ensure that the candidate is in regular

practice of driving. 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. Obviously, 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, which we need to dwell upon. This argument, if accepted, would

amount to putting the cart before the horse! Arguendo, assuming a person

is able to clear the subsequent stages of a recruitment process, the same

cannot be taken as entitling the said person to claim competence despite

not meeting the entry/threshold criterion. At the very least, not in the extant

factual prism.

35. For the reasons aforesaid and in the background of the discussions

made hereinabove, the appeals stand allowed. The Impugned Judgment,

appellant would be violative of the doctrine of equality, a backbone of the fundamental rights under our Constitution. A large number of such candidates may not have applied considering themselves to be ineligible adhering to the statutory rules and the terms of the advertisement.’ (emphasis supplied) 8 ‘16. This Court has also examined the relevant rules and even the clarification(s) to the advertisement. We are afraid that they do not indicate that the appellants can be deemed Ex-Servicemen from a prospective date, despite being in actual service on the relevant date. As such, in the case at hand at least, there is no concept of serving personnel being deemed Ex-Servicemen. It would not be proper for this Court to hold or interpret otherwise. Arguendo, if we were to venture down such a path, it would be unjust to a large number of others similarly placed as the appellants, who were not Ex-Servicemen as on the date of advertisement but came under the category later, but did not apply at the relevant time.’ (emphasis supplied)

46 the Final Order/Judgment dated 03.10.2023 and the interim Orders dated

13.03.2023 and 28.03.2023 passed by the Single Judges are set aside.

Resultantly, the underlying writ petitions stand dismissed. 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.

36. No order as to costs.

37. The Civil Appeals arising from Diary No.12553/2024 shall also stand

allowed in terms similar to Civil Appeals arising from SLP (C) Nos.8684-

8688/2024.

….………………..................…..J. [AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH]

….………………..................…..J. [S. V. N. BHATTI] NEW DELHI DECEMBER 18, 2025

47