Ashok Kumar vs Chief Secretary

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

The Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, the 4th respondent herein, initiated the steps for selection of Fire Operators in Delhi Fire Service, the 3rd respondent herein. The notification in this behalf was issued in the year 2009. The applicant responded to the same. One of the requirements is that a candidate must possess the heavy driving licence. The applicant enclosed a copy of licence said to have been issued on 12.05.2004.

The 3rd respondent got verified the same from the Transport Authority at Agra. It was informed that the licence relied upon by the applicant is not a genuine one and in fact, it was issued to a different person. In view of this development, the applicant was informed through letter dated 16.11.2012 that his candidature for the post is cancelled. The same is challenged in this O.A.

The applicant contends that the licence relied upon by him is genuine and it was, in fact, issued by the authority on 12. 05.2004. It is stated that the original licence was lost and the applicant obtained a duplicate licence and thereafter it was renewed; once on 11.11.2010 and thereafter on 28.01.2011, up to the year 2014. He contends that the so-called communication said to have been received by the 3rd respondent was behind his back and cannot be relied upon by the respondents. The applicant filed this O.A. seeking the relief to set aside the communication dated 16.11.2012 and for a direction to the respondents to consider his case for the post of Fire Operator.

On behalf of respondent Nos. 3 & 4, a detailed counter affidavit is filed. It is stated that the essential requirement for the post of Fire Operator is possession of a driving licence and on the basis of representation made by the applicant, he was provisionally selected, but on verification of the documents, it emerged that it is not genuine. It is stated that if the applicant has any grievance vis-à-vis licencing authority at Agra, he has to initiate separate proceedings.

We heard Mr. S K Gupta, learned counsel for applicant, Mr. Amit Anand, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 & 4 and Mr. Sarthak Chaturvedi and Mr. Shubham Jaiswal, learned counsel for respondent No.6. There is no representation on behalf of remaining respondents.

The applicant, no doubt, was provisionally selected or treated as a candidate for selection on the basis of information furnished by him. However, on verification of documents, it emerged that the licence relied upon by him is not a genuine one. A separate communication was received from the concerned RTO, Agra.

In the communication dated 28.05.2012, the particulars and status of as many as 25 licences referred to them, were furnished. The details pertaining to the applicant are furnished at Sl. No.2 and against the same, it is mentioned that the licence with No.7759/Ag/04 was issued on 12.05.2004 in favour of one Mr. Umesh Chand son of Mr. Rajan Kumar, and not to the applicant. With this, the claim of the applicant deserves to be rejected.

In case the applicant is of the view that the communication given by the RTO, Agra is not correct, he is to work out his remedies separately. This Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to decide the validity or otherwise of the licence issued by the RTO, Agra, under Motor Vehicle Act.

The O.A. is dismissed, leaving it open to the applicant to work out his remedies vis-à-vis RTO, Agra, if so advised.

There shall be no order as to costs.