The Supreme Court has set aside a decision of the Telangana High Court, ruling that the requirement to possess a driving licence “continuously” for a specified period in recruitment notifications must be interpreted literally to mean uninterrupted possession. The Court held that if a candidate’s licence had expired and was renewed after a gap, they could not be considered to have held the licence continuously for the relevant period, as the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, removed the grace period for expired licences.
The Bench, comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, allowed the appeals filed by the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board.
Brief Summary
The legal issue before the Apex Court was the interpretation of the eligibility condition stipulating that candidates must possess a driving licence “continuously for a period of full two years” prior to the date of the recruitment notification. The Court held that the expiry of a licence, followed by a subsequent renewal, constitutes a break in continuity. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s orders which had directed the consideration of candidates whose licences had expired but were renewed within one year.
Background of the Case
The Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board issued two notifications:
- Notification dated 25.04.2022: For Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT) Police Constable (Drivers) in the Police Transport Organization. The eligibility criteria required candidates to possess “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.”
- Notification dated 20.05.2022: For Driver Operator in the Telangana State Disaster Response and Fire Services Department, requiring a valid HMV License “continuously for a period of full two years and above as on date of this Notification.”
Several candidates (private respondents) were disqualified from the written examination because their driving licences were not valid continuously for the two years preceding the notifications. They approached the High Court, where a Single Judge allowed their writ petitions, holding that post-renewal, the validity of licences relates back to the date of expiry, thus maintaining continuity. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the Board’s appeals, affirming the Single Judge’s order. The Board then approached the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The Appellant (Recruitment Board) contended that the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, which came into force on 01.09.2019, significantly altered the statutory scheme. Learned senior counsel submitted that the amendment deleted the proviso to Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which previously provided a 30-day grace period where a licence remained effective after expiry.
The Appellant argued that the legislature “completely changed the language with the intent not to allow any grace period for drivers to drive with expired licences.” Therefore, treating the one-year period for renewal under the amended Section 15 as a liberty to drive or as a continuation of the licence was a “distorted interpretation of law.”
The Respondents (Candidates) argued that the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Amendment Act, 2019, reflected an intent to be liberal, increasing the renewal time limit from one month to one year. They supported the High Court’s view that since they applied for renewal within one year, the validity should be deemed continuous. Further, they argued that clause 19(iv) of the Notification required a driving test, implying that if a candidate qualifies the test, their competence is proven regardless of the break in the licence.
Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court analyzed Sections 14 and 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, comparing the pre-amendment and post-amendment provisions.
Impact of Amendment Act, 2019
The Court observed that the proviso to Section 14, which earlier stated that a driving licence “continue to be effective for a period of thirty days” from expiry, was omitted by the Amendment Act, 2019.
Justice Amanullah, writing for the Bench, observed:
“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.”
The Court rejected the theory that renewal operates retrospectively to validate the interregnum period for the purpose of the notification. The Court noted:
“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.”
Interpretation of “Continuously”
Referring to Black’s Law Dictionary, the Court defined “continuously” as “Uninterruptedly; in unbroken sequence; without intermission or cessation; without intervening time; with continuity or continuation.”
The Court held:
“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.”
Rejection of “Driving Test” Argument
The Court dismissed the argument that passing a driving test cures the ineligibility. The Bench reasoned that the driving test is an “abundant caution” to verify practical skills and cannot waive the threshold eligibility requirement. Furthermore, allowing ineligible candidates to participate would violate the doctrine of equality regarding those who did not apply believing they were ineligible.
The Court cited Rakesh Kumar Sharma v State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) and Sudhir Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh (2024), noting:
“Granting any benefit to the appellant would be violative of the doctrine of equality… 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.”
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the Impugned Judgment of the Division Bench dated 03.10.2023 and the Single Judge’s orders. The underlying writ petitions filed by the candidates were dismissed.
The Court directed the Appellant to complete the recruitment process “expeditiously and at any rate, within three months reckoned from today.”
Case Details:
- Case Title: Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board v. Penjarla Vijay Kumar & Ors. Etc.
- Case Number: Civil Appeals No. of 2025 [@ Special Leave Petitions (Civil) No. 8684-8688 of 2024]
- Citation: 2025 INSC 1452
- Coram: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice S. V. N. Bhatti
