MAHESHWARI PRASAD & ORS. versus STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

Citation: [2012] 2 S.C.R. 708 · Decided: 04-04-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2012] 2 S.C.R. 708 
MAHESHWARI PRASAD & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3393 of 2012) 
APR:L 4, 2012 
[ALTAMAS KABIR SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, JJ.] 
SERVICE LAW: 
c 
Recruitment - Police Drivers - Eligibility - Advertisement 
dated 6. 2. 2004 inviting applications for the posts of Police 
Drivers in State of Jharkhand - Held: The criteria for eligibility 
in the advertisement indicates that the candidate had to hold 
a licence for driving heavy motor vehicles or light motor 
0 
vehicles along with heavy motor vehicles - It is not as if the 
advertisement indicated that a candidate possessing a licence 
for driving only light motor vehicles would be eligible, the 
same had to be combined with the right to drive heavy motor 
vehicles - Thus, those having a combined licence for driving 
E both light motor vehicles and heavy motor vehicles, would be 
considered for appointment, along with those holding a 
licence to drive heavy motor vehicles exclusively. 
The instant appeals arose out of the writ petitions 
filed by the appellants challenging the merit list of Police 
F Drivers republished on 23.8.2005 pursuant to 
advertisement dated 6.2.2004 inviting applications to fill 
up 350 vacancies of Police Drivers in the State of 
Jharkhand. Their case was that the result-cum-merit list 
of successful candidates was published on 29.5.2005 in 
G which they were declared successful, but the said result 
was revised and the merit list was republished on 
23.8.2005 excluding their names. It was contended that 
there was no condition for possessing a licence for 
driving heavy motor vehicles and the said condition was 
H 
708 
MAHESHWARI PRASAD & ORS. v. STATE OF 
709 
. 
JHARKHAND & ORS. 
introduced only to accommodate other candidates. 
A 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 
Even the advertisement on which reliance has been 
8 
placed by the appellants, laid stress on a candidate 
having to possess a licence for driving heavy motor 
vehicles. The criteria for eligibility in the advertisement 
indicates that the candidate had to hold a licence for 
driving heavy motor vehicles or light motor vehicles 
along with heavy motor vehicles. The second criteria did C 
not necessarily mean that a person holding a licence for 
driving light motor vehicles had to be selected, since in 
the advertisement it was a person holding a licence for 
driving light motor vehicles as well as heavy motor 
vehicles, who was eligible for appointment. It is not as if D 
the advertisement indicated that a candidate possessing 
a licence for driving only light motor vehicles would be 
eligible, the same had to be combined with the right to 
drive heavy motor vehicles. Thus, those having a 
combined licence for driving both light motor vehicles and 
E 
heavy motor vehicles, would be considered for 
appointment, along with those holding a licence to drive 
heavy motor vehicles exclusively. Moreover, it is for the 
recruiting authorities to consider the candidates to be 
appointed according to their needs. It does not appear 
F 
that there has been a departure from the advertisement 
as published. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere 
with the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the 
High Court impugned in the appeals. [para 10- 12] [713-
F-H; 714-A-D] 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICT!ON : Civil Appeal No. 
3393 of 2012. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 14.09.2006 of the High 
Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in LP.A. No. 229 of 2006. 
H 
A 
B 
710 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
WITH 
C.A. Nos. 339¢~3395 of 2012. 
[2012] 2 S.C.R. 
Shekhar Prit Jha, Vikrant Bhardwaj, Sumit Kumar, Kumari 
Supriya, Danish Zubain Khan for the Appellants. 
Ratan ·Kumar Choudhari, Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, 
Dharmendra Kumar Sinha for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
C 
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. These Appeals are directed against the judgment and 
order dated 14th September, 2006, passed by the Jharkhand 
High Court in LP.A. No.229 of 2006, dismissing the same. The 
D said Letters Patent Appeal was directed against the judgment 
and order passed by the learned Single Judge on 13th April, 
2006 in W.P.(S) No.831 of 2006, and was disposed of in terms 
of an earlier order passed by the High Court in W.P.(S) 
N0.5459 of 2005. LP.A. No.729 of 2005, preferred by the said 
Writ Petitioners, was dismissed by a Division Bench of the 
E Jharkhand High Court on 22nd February, 2006, upholding the 
judgment and order of the lea

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.