Delhi High Court: In a writ petition challenging denial of appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police under the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) recruitment process, a Division Bench of V. Kameswar Rao* and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ., dismissed the petition, holding that possession of a valid LMV driving licence on the date of Physical Endurance and Measurement Test (PEMT) is an essential eligibility condition which cannot be relaxed or fulfilled at a later stage. The Court held that a learner’s licence cannot be equated with a valid driving licence for the purpose of eligibility and that the stipulation requiring such licence for male candidates flows from the statutory framework under the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980.
Rejecting the plea of discrimination and COVID-19-related hardship, the Court observed that in the absence of any challenge to the statutory rules, the eligibility condition cannot be termed arbitrary, and participation in the selection process estops the petitioner from assailing the same. The Court thus concluded that the petitioner’s disqualification was lawful and found no arbitrariness or illegality in the respondents’ action.
Background
In 2019, the SSC issued a notification for recruitment to the posts of Sub-Inspector (SI) in Delhi Police, CAPFs and Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) in CISF, the last date for submission of applications being 16 October 2019. The petitioner applied for the post of SI in Delhi Police and appeared in Paper-I examination on 12 December 2019, which he qualified. Thereafter, on 20 March 2020, he applied for an online LMV driving licence and on 8 June 2020, he was issued a learner’s licence upon qualifying the test.
Between July 2020 and December 2020, the petitioner could not secure a slot for the permanent driving licence test due to COVID-19 restrictions. On 24 December 2020, he appeared in the PEMT and qualified the same. At that stage, he submitted a copy of his learner’s licence but was required to produce a valid driving licence at the time of document verification. In the meantime, on 26 March 2021, the petitioner was issued a valid LMV driving licence. He thereafter appeared in Paper-II examination on 26 July 2021 and qualified the same; however, during the medical examination, when he sought to submit the said driving licence, the same was not accepted.
The petitioner contended that despite qualifying all stages of the examination, he was denied appointment to the post of SI in Delhi Police solely on the ground that he did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of PEMT/document verification. It was further contended that the delay in obtaining the licence was attributable to COVID-19 Pandemic restrictions and that the stipulation requiring a valid LMV driving licence was discriminatory inasmuch as it applied only to male candidates and not to female candidates.
The respondents on the contrary submitted that as per Para 7.6 of the notification, possession of a valid LMV driving licence on the date of PEMT was an essential eligibility condition for male candidates applying for the post of SI in Delhi Police. Since the petitioner admittedly did not possess the same on 24 December 2020, he was held ineligible for the said post, though he was declared successful for the post of SI in CISF. It was further contended that the said stipulation was in consonance with the applicable recruitment rules and, having participated in the selection process, the petitioner was estopped from challenging the same.
Analysis
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court observed that the short issue for consideration was whether the petitioner had been rightly disqualified from selection to the post of SI in Delhi Police.
On the plea of discrimination, the Court held that Rule 7, Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980 mandates that male candidates must possess a valid driving licence for LMV on the date fixed for PEMT, whereas no such stipulation exists under Rule 14(a) for female candidates. The Court held that the stipulation in the impugned notification flows from the statutory rules and, in the absence of any challenge to the rules themselves, the contention of discrimination cannot be accepted.
On the issue of disqualification, the Court held that possession of a valid driving licence on the date of PEMT, i.e. 24 December 2020 was an essential eligibility condition and, admittedly, the petitioner neither possessed nor produced the same on the said date. The contention that a learner’s licence should be treated at par with a driving licence was rejected, placing reliance on Alka Ojha v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, (2011) 9 SCC 438, wherein it was held that a learner’s licence cannot be equated with a valid driving licence for the purpose of fulfilling eligibility criteria. The Court further held that statutory requirements cannot be relaxed or complied with at a later stage and the petitioner cannot be permitted to cure the deficiency subsequently.
The Court also rejected the plea of equity, observing that the petitioner had been offered the post of SI in CISF and cannot insist on appointment to a particular post despite being ineligible. The contention regarding COVID-19 Pandemic was also not accepted, the Court observing that the notification was issued in 2019 and the petitioner had sufficient time to obtain a valid driving licence before the date of PEMT.
Decision
Accordingly, the Court concluded that the petitioner’s disqualification was in accordance with the rules, found no arbitrariness or illegality in the action of the respondents, and dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit.
Also Read: No indefeasible right to appointment beyond cut-off: Del HC | SCC Times
[Vikram Kumar Jha v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 1787, decided on 20-4-2026]
*Judgment authored by: Justice V. Kameswar Rao
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Vikas Kumar, Sunil Verma, Karan Gulwade, Advocates
For the Respondent: Leena Tuteja, CGSC, Kshitij Chhabra, SPC, Ishita Kadyan, Abhijeet Vikram Singh, Advocates
