AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Under advertisement dated 10.10.2014, the Registrar
(Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur invited
applications from eligible candidates to be considered for
appointment as Driver with Rajasthan High Court & Rajasthan
Legal Service Authority. As per Para-4 of the advertisement
aforesaid, an aspirant to be considered for appointment as
Driver must be having eye-sight of 6/6 with or without
spectacles and further his weight should not be more than 65
Kilogram (Kg). The condition is in terms of Clause 31 of the
order issued by Hon''ble the Chief Justice as per Rule 7 of the
Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002 (hereinafter
referred to as ''the Rules of 2002'') prescribing qualifications
required for appointment as Driver. The Clause aforesaid
reads as under :-
"31.DRIVER - Recruitment to the post of Driver shall be made by direct recruitment after holding a job test and personal interview from amongst the eligible candidates on the recommendation of a Committee nominated by the Appointing Authority,
a) who have passed the VIIth Class from any Government School or any School recognised by the Government for the purpose; possesses a Light Motor Vehicle driving licence and also 3 years'' experience as a driver, and, (deleted)
b) possesses -
(i) weight not more than 65 k.g.
(ii) Sight 6/6 with or without glasses,
(iii) knowledge of road side repairs of motor vehicles"
To challenge the Clause aforesaid, these petitions for writ
are preferred.
The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner/s
while questioning validity of the provision aforesaid is that
fixing of 65 Kg maximum weight to be considered for
appointment as Driver is highly irrational, manifestly arbitrary
and is having no nexus with the object sought to be achieved
by regulating the recruitment of the Drivers. It is stated that
the criteria for qualification or disqualification has to be
co-related with height of the candidate. It is submitted that if
condition No.4(2) of the advertisement dated 10.10.2004 is
allowed to be executed, it would mean that the candidates
having shorter height would be selected, though, they may be
overweight and the candidates with height above 5" and 4''
shall be disqualified through having weight in consonance to
the criteria settled assess physical fitness in scientific terms.
As per medical science, a healthy individual has one Kilogram
of weight on 1 inch of his body height.
While contesting the writ petition, the submission made
on behalf of respondent is that "fixing of 65 kg maximum
weight for the post of Driver in no manner can be said to be
irrational, as the same has been fixed in order to appointment
physically fit persons for the post of Driver. Further, Rule
31 of the Rules of 2002, prescribe only for maximum limit of
body weight and eye sight of 6/6 with or without glasses. It
does not prescribe any condition of height so that the ratio of
height and weight is not required to be considered, therefore,
the criteria of weight prescribed in the advertisement cannot
be challenged on the basis of ratio of height and weight. It is
also relevant to mention that the job of driver requires top
level physical fitness as well as flexibility so fixing the
criteria of upto 65 kg weight allows the respondent, who being
an employer, is the best judge to select the best talent and
physically fit candidates for the post of driver. Therefore, the
condition of maximum weight for drivers to be 65 kg is neither
arbitrary or unjust or unreasonable" (quoted from reply to the
writ petition). It is also stated on behalf of the respondent
that the petitioners participated in the process of selection
without raising any objection about the condition impugned,
therefore, on being failed to be selected as Driver, it is not
open for them to question validity of the Rule concern.
Heard learned counsels appearing on behalf of the rival
parties.
Before coming to the argument advanced by learned
counsel, we would like to state that Chapter II of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act of
1988'') pertains to licencing of drivers of motor vehicles. As
per Section 3 of that, no person shall drive a motor vehicle in
any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence
issued to him authorizing to drive a vehicle. No person, as per
Section 4 of the Act of 1988 under the age of 18 years shall
drive a motor vehicle in any public place and Section 6 of the
Act of 1988 provide certain other restrictions to have driving
licence. Section 18 of the Act of 1988 confers upon Central
Government power to prescribe the authority for grant of
driving licences to drive motor vehicle, which are property of
the Central Government and are used for government
purposes. Section 19 pertains to power of licencing authority
to disqualify a driving licence or revoke such licence. The
Motor Vehicle Act or the Rules framed under Section 139 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 nowhere prescribes any condition
akin to the condition under challenge in this petition for writ,
hence, the weight of a person beyond 65 Kg is no impedement
in having driving licence under the Act of 1988 and the Rules
framed thereunder. The condition aforesaid, as such, is as the
order issued under relevant Service Rules only.
The submission of learned counsels appearing on behalf
of petitioners is that the condition impugned is bad, being
irrational and manifestly arbitrary. It is stated that to assess
physical fitness of a person to hold the post of Driver, the
criteria must be a scientific one, whereas in the case in hand
there is no rational for keeping 65 Kg of weight as maximum
weight. It is asserted that physical fitness of an incumbent is
required to be examined by taking into consideration total
body structure including height of the aspirant. The
prescription of maximum weight without considering height of
the person concerned does not represent correct physical
fitness, thus, the condition under challenge is highly
irrational. Much emphasis is given by learned counsel upon
the importance of "Body Mass Index", that determines
physical fitness of a person by taking into consideration
his/her height and weight.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent,
beside the averments contained in written, while defending
the provision under challenge, pointed out that in other
Service Rules framed by the Governor of Rajasthan invoking
powers under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of
India, the maximum weight prescribed to hold the post of
Driver is also 65 Kg, thus, in the instant case too the same
criteria is adopted to assess physical fitness.
True it is, a Driver is suppose to possess absolute
physical fitness and no compromise with physical fitness of a
driver can be made, hence, prescription of criteria for physical
fitness under the Rules while employing a driver is quite just,
but such criteria must meet four corners of reasonability as
per the standards required to determine physical fitness. The
Rules of 2002, though, prescribes maximum weight to be
considered for appointment as Driver, but no criteria of having
minimum height is given. It is well settled that weight of a
human body is having direct co-relation with height of that
body and the "Body Mass Index" is the criteria settled for
determination of such co-relation. This Index is the person''s
body weight divided by a settled square of his/her height and
that is to be calculated by dividing total weight from a cubic of
height. As per Body Mass Index the prescribed, height/weight
chart for Indian men and women from the height of 5"2'' to
6"3'' is as under :-
Height in Feet/Inches Men (in Kgs) Women (in Kgs)
5''3" 57.6 to 61.7 54.4 to 58.1
5''4" 58.9 to 63.5 56.3 to 59.9
5''5" 60.8 to 65.3 57.6 to 61.2
5''6" 62.2 to 66.7 58.9 to 63.5
5''7" 64.0 to 68.5 60.8 to 65.3
5''8" 65.8 to 70.8 62.2 to 66.7
5''9" 67.6 to 72.6 64.0 to 68.5
5''10" 69.4 to 74.4 65.8 to 70.3
5''11" 71.2 to 76.2 67.1 to 71.7
6''0" 73.0 to 78.5 68.5 to 73.9
6''1" 75.3 to 80.7 --
6''2" 77.6 to 83.5 --
6''3" 79.8 to 85.7 --
Looking to the chart above, if the criteria of maximum
weight as given under the Rules of 2002 be executed, then the
person fittest shall not be a person above the height of 5''6" or
all other persons in scientific terms shall not be physically
perfect to drive a motor vehicle. In view of the scientific
criteria, the prescription of maximum weight limit without
taking into consideration height of the aspirant to be
considered for appointment as Driver is highly laconic and
irrational. The condition impugned, as a matter of fact
excludes a better physically fit persons and includes the
persons who may be either underweight (if the height is more
than 5''6'''') and overweight (if the height is less than 5''6''''). In
view of it, we are having no doubt that the prescription of
maximum weight without prescribing minimum height to be
considered for appointment as Driver is not appropriate to
determine physical fitness. The Clause impugned suffers from
irrationality and also lack reasonability, hence, deserves to be
declared illegal.
While arriving at the conclusion as above, we would like
to state that the process of selection initiated under the
advertisement dated 10.10.2014 has been concluded,
appointments to the selected persons have already been given
and the petitioners challenged the condition given therein after
participating in the process of selection, therefore, it shall not
be appropriate to disturb the selections already made.
Accordingly, these petitions for writ are allowed in-part.
Clause 31 of the order issued by Hon`ble the Chief Justice as
per Rule 7 of the Rules, 2002 is declared illegal to the extent it
provides 65 Kilogram of weight as the maximum weight
required to be possessed by a person desirous to be
considered for appointment as Driver. The respondents are at
liberty to provide necessary criteria to assess physical fitness
that is required to be possessed by a person desirous to be
considered for appointment as Driver under the Rules of 2002
by taking into consideration all physical fitness factors
including height and weight required and while doing so, the
criteria of "Body Mass Index" is required to be kept in mind.
The petition is dismissed to the extent it claims for a writ,
order or direction to quash the selections conducted under the
advertisement dated 10.10.2014.
No order as to costs.