VIKASH KUMAR SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.
LAWS(JHAR)-2015-1-91
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on January 23,2015

VIKASH KUMAR SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Petitioner being not in possession of working experience of three years which is the eligibility qualification of Motor Vehicles Inspector, as prescribed in Clause 4 (b) of the Jharkhand Motor Vehicle Inspector Cadre (Appointment, Promotion and Conditions of Services) Rules, 2010 (in short 'Rules of 2010'), thus finding himself ineligible for the post of Motor Vehicles Inspector after issuance of the Advertisement No. 01/2013 and 02/2013 by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission for the appointment to the post of Motor Vehicles Inspector, has sought quashment of Clause 4 (b) of Rules of 2010 vis- -vis the minimum experience, primarily on the ground that this power vests with the Central Government only under section 213(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act and not with the State. Further asserts that since the Central Government has already issued a notification vide S.O. 443(E) dated 12.06.1989 prescribing the working experience as one year in a reputed automobiles workshop which undertakes repairs of both light motor vehicles, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger motor vehicles and not three years, as prescribed in Clause 4 (b) of Rules of 2010, it is not in the competence of State to make its own rules in this regard by increasing the working experience to 3 years..
(2.) Issue cropped up in the instant petition is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of S. Satyapal Reddy and others versus Govt. of A.P. and others, 1994 4 SCC 391], wherein powers of the State Government under Section 213(1) of Motor Vehicles Act and that of Central Government under section 213(4) of Motor Vehicles Act were discussed with the comparative scope and ultimately, their Lordships observed that notwithstanding the provision in sub-section (4) empowering the Central Government to prescribe minimum qualifications, the State Government remains competent to prescribe higher qualifications for that purpose.
(3.) Following the ratio of S. Satyapal Reddy case, in our view, petitioner has no case for the relief sought herein.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.