VERMA, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the petitioner be medically examined and appointed on the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector.
(2.) IN response to advertisement dated 5. 11. 98 (annexure-6), published on 15. 11. 98, for direct recruitment on the post of Motor Vehicle Sub INspector, the petitioner had applied attaching the documents. He was allotted the Roll No. 100553 and appeared in examination in February, 1999. The result was declared on 1. 8. 99. The petitioner was informed by annexure-7 that he was tentatively pass and was asked to submit certain other documents as mentioned in annexure-7 and was asked to appear in interview on 20. 9. 99 along with diploma in mechanical and driving licence. The petitioner was placed in merit at Sr. No. 31. The petitioner was asked to produce driving licence HGV having validity date prior to 31. 12. 98. The petitioner submitted the learner licence valid from 27. 11. 98 to 26. 5. 99 by adding HGV on 5. 2. 99, with the result the candidature of petitioner was rejected as he was not having valid licence as on 31. 12. 98. It is the submission of petitioner that he was having valid licence at the relevant time and he had been rejected illegally. Per contra, the case of respondent is that the petitioner was not having a valid driving licence as was required. For the recruitment to the post, the essential qualification as mentioned in the advertisement was to pass secondary examination; driving licence of HPV and HGV having validity dates prior to 31. 12. 98; Automobile Engineering Diploma of three years or Diploma from ITI of three years having experience of one year in automobile workshop. It was specifically mentioned that the candidate should be in possession of qualification upto last date of receipt of application, failing which the application shall not be considered. It is denied that the petitioner had produced duplicate copy of licence with the endorsement that he has been authorised to drive heavy motor vehicle from 5. 2. 99. After hearing counsel for parties. I do not fine any fault with the order based by respondents to the effect that on the making of application by petitioner in pursuance of the advertisement, the petitioner was not possessing valid driving licence as required and he was not eligible to be considered. It is the case where RPSC was well aware that the petitioner was not eligible, but still had allowed the petitioner to appear in examination and put him at Sr. No. 31 and even asked him to appear in interview. If according to RPSC the petitioner did not fulfil the qualifications as required, the form could be returned to petitioner or the candidate should be informed either to complete the defficiency before allowing him to appear in examination or the RPSC should not have accepted the application form so that the candidate could have saved the trouble and expenses. Even though, the writ petition is being dismissed but it is noticed that despite the fact that the petitioner had not attached valid driving licence, but still he was asked to appear in examination. His form could have been rejected, even before issuing roll number. It seems that the RPSC instead of scrutinising the application forms allows each and every applicant to appear in examination and after declaration of result scrutinises the documents attached therewith and thus unnecessary causing harassment to the unemployed candidates. The RPSC should invariably first scrutinise the application form to see if the application form is complete in all respects and the documents have been attached or not and if any document or particulars are lacking the application form can be rejected or the candidate can be asked to produce the document before allowing him to appear in the examination or to appear subject to the competing the formality instead of informing the candidates after appearing in examination.
(3.) WITH the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. But for the reasons and discussion made above the RPSC shall pay the cost of Rs. 1,000/- to petitioner. .;