Eligibility for motor vehicle recruitment must exist on the cut-off date; a learner's licence does not satisfy the driving licence requirement.

Eligibility for appointment as Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspector had to be satisfied on the last date fixed for applications, because the service rules and advertisement made the prescribed educational, technical and driving qualifications mandatory. Later acquisition of the qualifications could not cure the defect. A learner's licence was not equivalent to a driving licence, since the statutory scheme treated the two as distinct and the recruitment rule required an effective driving licence. The Court also held that ineligible appointees could not be allowed to continue in service or be regularised through Article 142, as that would validate an illegal appointment and prejudice eligible candidates. The challenge failed, subject only to a limited direction for fresh selection.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the qualifications prescribed for appointment as Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspector under the applicable service rules were mandatory and had to be satisfied on the last date fixed for submission of applications; (ii) whether a learner's licence could be treated as equivalent to a driving licence for the purpose of eligibility; (iii) whether the petitioners, though found ineligible, could be allowed to continue in service.

Issue (i): whether the qualifications prescribed for appointment as Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspector under the applicable service rules were mandatory and had to be satisfied on the last date fixed for submission of applications.

Analysis: The applicable rule used mandatory language and the schedule appended to the rules, read with the advertisement, required possession of the prescribed educational and technical qualifications, working experience and the prescribed driving licence. The settled principle applied was that eligibility must be tested with reference to the cut-off date fixed by the service rules, and where no such date is provided, by the advertisement or the last date for receipt of applications. The later possession of the required qualification could not cure the defect.

Conclusion: The qualifications were mandatory and had to exist on the last date fixed for submission of the application. The finding was against the petitioners.

Issue (ii): whether a learner's licence could be treated as equivalent to a driving licence for the purpose of eligibility.

Analysis: The statutory definitions distinguished a driving licence from a learner's licence. A driving licence authorises driving otherwise than as a learner, whereas a learner's licence permits driving only as a learner. The provisions regulating licensing also treated the two as separate categories, and the mandatory prohibition against driving without an effective driving licence showed that a learner's licence could not satisfy the recruitment requirement of holding a driving licence.

Conclusion: A learner's licence was not equivalent to a driving licence and did not make the petitioners eligible. The finding was against the petitioners.

Issue (iii): whether the petitioners, though found ineligible, could be allowed to continue in service.

Analysis: The power under Article 142 could not be used to validate appointments of persons who were not eligible under the governing rules. Allowing continuance would amount to regularising an illegal appointment and would prejudice eligible candidates. No provision under the rules enabled regularisation of an ineligible appointment.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to continue in service. The finding was against the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the High Court's decision failed, the appointments based on ineligibility could not be sustained, and only a limited direction for completion of fresh selection with interim continuance until then was left in place.

Ratio Decidendi: Eligibility for public employment must be determined strictly on the cut-off date fixed by the governing rules or advertisement, and a learner's licence cannot be treated as an effective driving licence where the recruitment rule specifically requires a driving licence.

---