Delhi High Court
Delhi Police & Anr vs Sudheer Kumar on 25 March, 2026
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 06.02.2026
Pronounced on: 25.03.2026
+ W.P.(C) 17015/2025 & CM APPL. 69982/2025
DELHI POLICE & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Animesh Rastogi, SPC along
with Ms. Neha Rastogi, Mr.
Shashank Pandey, Mr. Ashutosh
Pathak, Advs.
versus
SUDHEER KUMAR ....Respondent
Through: Ms. Esha Mazumdar, Ms.
Muskan Sharma, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
JUDGMENT
MADHU JAIN, J.
1. The present petition has been filed, challenging the order dated
29.04.2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal,
Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in
O.A. No. 890/2024, titled Sudheer Kumar v. Delhi Police & Anr.,
whereby the learned Tribunal allowed the said O.A. filed by the
respondent herein and directed the petitioners to permit the respondent to
join duty as a Constable (Driver)-Male.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI W.P.(C) 17015/2025 Page 1 of 18
Signing Date:25.03.2026
19:05:53
FACTUAL MATRIX:
2. The brief facts leading to the present petition are that, for filling up
1411 vacancies for the post of Constable (Driver)-Male, a Notice dated
08.07.2022 was issued by the Staff Selection Commission (‘SSC’). The
Notice stipulated the eligibility criteria, terms and conditions, and
instructions governing the recruitment process. The closing date for
receipt of online applications was 29.07.2022.
3. Under Clause 6 of the Notice, captioned “Essential Qualification”,
it was stipulated, inter alia, that the candidate must possess a valid
driving license for Heavy Motor Vehicles on the closing date of receipt
of online application. The relevant portion of the said Notice is
reproduced hereinbelow:
“6. Essential Qualification
a) 10+2 (Senior Secondary) passed or equivalent
from a recognized Board (as on 29.07.2022 i.e.
the closing date of receipt of online application)
b) Should be able to drive heavy vehicles with
confidence
c) Valid driving license for Heavy Motor
Vehicles (as on closing date of receipt of online
application)
d) Possess knowledge of maintenance of
vehicles”
4. Further, Clause 15.16 of the Notice provided that the candidature
of a candidate would be purely provisional at all stages and could be
cancelled at any time, even after issuance of the Offer of Appointment, if
it was found that the candidate did not fulfil the prescribed eligibility
conditions. The said Clause 15.16 is reproduced hereinbelow:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI W.P.(C) 17015/2025 Page 2 of 18
Signing Date:25.03.2026
19:05:53
“15.16 The candidates applying for the
examination should ensure that they fulfill all
the eligibility conditions for admission to the
examination. Their admission at all the stages
of examination will be purely provisional,
subject to their satisfying the prescribed
eligibility conditions. If, on verification, at any
time before or after the Computer Based
Examination, PE&MT and Medical
Examination as well as after issue of Offer of
Appointment/Joining the Service, it is found
that they do not fulfill any of the eligibility
conditions, their candidature/selection foil the
post will be cancelled by the
Commission/Delhi Police.”
5. The respondent applied for the post of Constable (Driver)-Male
pursuant to the said Notice. He qualified the Computer-Based
Examination conducted on 21.10.2022, the Physical Efficiency
Test/Physical Standard Test (hereinafter referred to as, ‘PET/PST’) on
27.04.2023, and the Trade Test held on 08.11.2023. It is the case of the
respondent that at the stage of the Trade Test, his driving license was
duly verified, and it was only thereafter that he appeared for and
qualified the Medical Examination conducted on 15.12.2023 and
16.12.2023.
6. Pursuant thereto, the respondent was issued a Letter dated
29.01.2024, informing him that he had been provisionally selected for
the post of Constable (Driver)-Male in Delhi Police. He was further
informed that, prior to the issuance of an Offer of Appointment, he
would be required to furnish his Resignation Letter and a No Objection
Certificate. Accordingly, the respondent, who had been serving in the
Central Industrial Security Force (‘CISF’) since 21.09.2019, tendered his
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI W.P.(C) 17015/2025 Page 3 of 18
Signing Date:25.03.2026
19:05:53
Technical Resignation from CISF Unit, DAE Kalpakkam, which was
accepted vide Relieving Order dated 05.02.2024. Thereafter, an Offer of
Appointment dated 19.02.2024 was issued to him, offering him
provisional appointment to the post of Constable (Driver)-Male. The said
letter dated 19.02.2024 also stipulated therein that the Offer of
Appointment shall be treated as withdrawn if the candidate is found
ineligible on document verification.
7. During document verification, it was noticed that the respondent
was not possessing a valid license on the crucial date, that is, the last
date for online applications, being 29.07.2022, as the respondent’s
Heavy Motor Vehicle (hereinafter referred to as ‘HMV’) driving license
had expired on 10.07.2022. In view of the essential eligibility conditions
under the Recruitment Notice not being met by the respondent, the
respondent was not permitted to join the post of Constable (Driver)-Male
in Delhi Police.
8. It is the case of the respondent that, being posted in Tamil Nadu,
he was unable to get his license renewed offline. He attempted to renew
his license online on 12.07.2022, however failed due to a server error.
Thereafter, he again applied for renewal on 15.07.2022, however, due to
administrative delays, the renewed license was issued only on
05.08.2022, that is, after the closing date of the online applications.
9. The respondent submitted a representation dated 23.02.2024 to the
petitioners, contending that since he had applied for renewal within thirty
days of expiry of the license, the renewal would operate from the date of
expiry and, therefore, he must be deemed to have possessed a valid
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI W.P.(C) 17015/2025 Page 4 of 18
Signing Date:25.03.2026
19:05:53
license on the crucial date. However, the respondent was still not
permitted to join the said post.
10. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent approached the learned
Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 890/2024, contending that by virtue of
Section 15(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as,
the ‘Act’), read with Rule 6 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989,
the renewal of his license would relate to the date of expiry, therefore,
the license must be treated as continuous and valid on the crucial date.
11. The learned Tribunal, in the Impugned Order, agreed with the
respondent’s submissions and allowed the said O.A., observing as under:
“11. It is not disputed that the applicant
possessed a valid driving license on the
crucial date of eligibility (08.07.2022), which
expired on 10.07.2022. It is also not disputed
that the applicant submitted his renewal
application on 15.07.2022, well within the
statutorily permissible period of thirty days as
prescribed under Section 15(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, which states:
“Any licensing authority may, on an
application made to it, renew a driving licence
issued under the provisions of this Act with
effect from the date of its expiry if the
application is made within thirty days
thereof.”
12. In light of the statutory provision, the
applicant’s license is deemed to have
remained valid without interruption, as the
application for renewal was made within the
prescribed grace period. Moreover, the license
was verified and accepted at two separate
stages during the selection process, and no
objection was raised by the respondents at any
of those stages.
13. In view of the above discussion, and
considering the beneficial and purposive
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI W.P.(C) 17015/2025 Page 5 of 18
Signing Date:25.03.2026
19:05:53
interpretation of the Motor Vehicles Act in
conjunction with the facts of the case, the
Original Application is allowed. The applicant
is declared to be in possession of a valid
driving licence. The Respondents are directed
to permit the applicant to join duty pursuant to
the Offer of Appointment dated 19.02.2024,
within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this order. There
shall be no order as to costs.”
12. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed the present petition.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:
13. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that during
document verification, it was noticed that the respondent’s HMV driving
license had expired on 10.07.2022 and the renewal thereof was effected
only after the closing date for submission of applications, that is,
29.07.2022. It was submitted that, therefore, the respondent did not
possess a valid HMV license as on the closing date of receipt of online
applications, which was an essential eligibility condition, as stipulated in
Clause 6(c) of the recruitment Notice, therefore, he stood disqualified.
14. The learned counsel submitted that the respondent, being aware of
the fact that his license was about to expire, ought to have applied for its
renewal well in advance, to ensure that he obtains the renewed license
before the crucial date.
15. It is further submitted that the Offer of Appointment issued to the
respondent clearly stipulated that the same was purely provisional and
subject to final checking of documents and biometric verification. In
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI W.P.(C) 17015/2025 Page 6 of 18
Signing Date:25.03.2026
19:05:53
furtherance, it is argued that no vested right accrued in favour of the
respondent merely by the issuance of a provisional offer. The relevant
clause of the Offer of Appointment reads as under:
“This offer of appointment is purely
provisional which is subject to final checking
of documents and biometric identification… In
case you fail to report at NPL for document
checking/biometric verification or found
ineligible for the post in any respect, this offer
of appointment will be treated as withdrawn.”
16. The learned counsel also contended that the eligibility conditions
prescribed in a recruitment notification are sacrosanct and cannot be
relaxed by judicial intervention. In support, reliance is placed upon the
judgments of the Supreme Court in Yogesh Kumar & Ors. v.
Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors., (2003) 3 SCC 548; Bedanga
Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan & Ors., (2011) 12 SCC 85 and other
decisions including Vidushi Gupta v. Armed Forces Medical College &
Anr., W.P.(C) No. 4521/2012, and Abhishek Khandelwal v. Union of
India & Anr. (O.A. No. 1102/2022), and Sh. Rajveer Singh Verma v.
Union Public Service Commission & Anr., O.A. No. 224/2014.
17. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in treating
the respondent’s license as valid. The learned Tribunal has conferred an
undue advantage upon the respondent, thereby prejudicing similarly
placed candidates who may have refrained from applying due to non-
possession of a valid HMV license as on the crucial date.
18. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relies upon a
judgement of the Supreme Court in Telangana State Level Police
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI W.P.(C) 17015/2025 Page 7 of 18
Signing Date:25.03.2026
19:05:53
Recruitment Board v. Penjarla Vijay Kumar and Ors., 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 2915, wherein it was held that renewal of a license after its
expiry does not relate back to the date of expiry.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:
19. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the
respondent is a meritorious candidate who has successfully qualified the
Computer-Based Examination, PE&MT, Trade Test, and Medical
Examination. It is submitted that once a candidate has cleared all the
stages of selection and has been issued an Offer of Appointment, any
adverse action affecting his appointment must withstand strict scrutiny
on the touchstone of fairness and reasonableness. In furtherance, reliance
is placed upon the principle of “legitimate expectation” to submit that the
respondent had a legitimate expectation of appointment after having
been declared successful and after issuance of the Offer of Appointment.
20. The learned counsel, in furtherance, places reliance on the
decision of the Supreme Court in Vashist Narayan Kumar v. State of
Bihar, (2024) 11 SCC 785, to submit that once a candidate has
successfully participated in the selection process and cleared all stages,
his candidature cannot be cancelled for trivial, bona fide or technical
lapses that do not go to the root of eligibility.
21. It is further submitted that as per Clause 11.16 of the SSC Notice,
the driving license of candidates qualifying the PE&MT are to be
verified, and only those whose license are found genuine are permitted to
appear in the Trade Test. Accordingly, the respondent’s driving license
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI W.P.(C) 17015/2025 Page 8 of 18
Signing Date:25.03.2026
19:05:53
was verified during the course of the recruitment process, and he was
permitted to participate in the Trade Test, with no objection raised at that
stage. In furtherance, reliance is placed upon the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap & Ors. v. South East Central
Railway & Ors., (2019) 12 SCC 798, wherein it was observed that
though successful candidates do not acquire a vested right of
appointment, the State must act in a non-arbitrary manner and must
furnish justifiable reasons if it declines to fill the posts or denies
appointment after selection.
22. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondent cannot
be penalised for administrative delays on the part of the Regional
Transport Office in issuing the renewed license. The renewal application
was submitted well within the permissible period, that is, on 12.07.2022
and again on 15.07.2022. She submitted that the delay in issuance of the
renewed license up to 05.08.2022 was beyond the control of the
respondent.
23. It is further submitted that the respondent’s case pertains to
renewal of an existing driving license and not to the acquisition of a
fresh license after the cut-off date. The respondent had applied for
renewal of the license within the statutorily prescribed period, and the
renewal was effected shortly thereafter. It is also contended that the
respondent met the eligibility condition on the opening date for
submission of applications, that is, 08.07.2022, with the license
remaining valid till 10.07.2022. She submitted that the denial of
appointment to the respondent in the present case amounts to a hyper-
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI W.P.(C) 17015/2025 Page 9 of 18
Signing Date:25.03.2026
19:05:53
technical interpretation of eligibility conditions, ignoring the beneficial
provisions of the Act and the principles of fairness and reasonableness in
public employment.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
24. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have
perused the record.
25. The limited question involved in the present case is whether the
respondent can be said to be possessing a valid HMV driving license on
the relevant date of eligibility.
26. The recruitment Notice dated 08.07.2022 is very clear and fixes a
definite cut-off date. Clause 6(c) thereof mandates possession of a “Valid
driving license for Heavy Motor Vehicles (as on closing date of receipt
of online application)”. Clause 15.16 further stipulates that candidature
would remain provisional and liable to cancellation if the candidate is
found not to fulfil the prescribed eligibility conditions. The Offer of
Appointment dated 19.02.2024 reiterates this position. Therefore, the
claim of the respondent must stand scrutiny with reference to eligibility
as on 29.07.2022.
27. It is an admitted position that the respondent’s HMV license
expired on 10.07.2022. Though the respondent applied for renewal on
15.07.2022, the license was renewed only on 05.08.2022, that is, after
the date of eligibility.
28. The learned Tribunal has proceeded on the premise that since the
renewal application was made by the respondent within thirty days of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI W.P.(C) 17015/2025 Page 10 of 18
Signing Date:25.03.2026
19:05:53
expiry, the license must be deemed to have remained valid without
interruption by virtue of Section 15(1) of the Act. The learned Tribunal
has erred in placing reliance on the unamended provision, thereby
committing a grave error.
29. The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred
to as, the ‘Amendment Act’), was made effective from 01.09.2019, and
brought important changes, inter alia, to Section 15 of the Act, thereby
materially altering the legal position of license renewal. The amended
Section 15(1) provides that a license shall be renewed from the date of
its renewal. The relevant provisions of the amended Section are
reproduced hereinbelow:
“Section 15 – Renewal of driving licences
(1) Any licensing authority may, on
application made to it, renew a driving licence
issued under the provisions of this Act with
effect from the date of its expiry:
Provided that in any case where the
application for the renewal of a licence is
made either one year prior to date of its
expiry or within one year after the date of its
expiry, the driving licence shall be renewed
with effect from the date of its renewal:
Provided further that where the application is
for the renewal of a licence to drive a
transport vehicle or where in any other case
the applicant has attained the age of forty
years, the same shall be accompanied by a
medical certificate in the same form and in the
same manner as is referred to in sub-section
(3) of section 8, and the provisions of sub-
section (4) of section 8 shall, so far as may be,
apply in relation to every such case as they
apply in relation to a learner’s licence.”
m and in the same manner as is referred to in
sub-section (3) of section 8, and the provisions
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI W.P.(C) 17015/2025 Page 11 of 18
Signing Date:25.03.2026
19:05:53
of sub-section (4) of section 8 shall, so far as
may be, apply in relation to every such case as
they apply in relation to a learner’s licence.”
30. A plain reading of the amended provisions makes it abundantly
clear that the Legislature has consciously deleted the earlier statutory
grace period of thirty days. Under the unamended regime, the license
continued to remain effective for thirty days post-expiry and renewal
within that period related back to the date of expiry. However, after the
Amendment Act was enforced, this legal position no longer survives.
The proviso to Section 14 of the pre-amendment Act, granting an
automatic extension to license for a period of thirty days, also stands
omitted by the Amendment Act.
31. This precise issue has also been examined by the Supreme Court
in Penjarla Vijay Kumar (supra), wherein, after analyzing the pre and
post-amendment schemes of Sections 14 and 15, it was held that the
omission of the proviso providing for a 30-day grace period is deliberate
and that, post-amendment, there is no automatic continuation of the
license beyond the date of expiry. The Supreme Court emphasized that
the legislative change cannot be treated as cosmetic and must be given
full effect. It was further observed that the Act, after the amendment,
stipulates that from the very next day of expiry of the license, the holder
is legally incompetent to drive, unless renewal of the license is effected.
It was further stipulated that renewal of a license would operate from the
date of renewal. The relevant extracts from the judgement are
reproduced hereinbelow:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI W.P.(C) 17015/2025 Page 12 of 18
Signing Date:25.03.2026
19:05:53
“27. The relevant change brought about in
Section 14 of 1988 Act by the Amendment Act,
2019 is that the proviso (highlighted supra)
has been omitted by the amendment. In Section
15 of the 1988 Act, by the Amendment Act,
2019, the first proviso to sub-section (1) has
been modified. Earlier, in the first proviso to
sub-section (1) of Section 15, after the words,
‘licence is made’, the words ‘more than 30
days after the date of its expiry’ occurred,
which now has been changed to ‘either one
year prior to the date of its expiry or within
one year after the date of its expiry.’ Another
change effected is that in sub-section (3) of
Section 15 of the 1988 Act, in place of the
words ‘thirty days’, ‘one year’ has been
substituted.
28. The last proviso to Section 14 of the 1988
Act which read ‘Provided that every driving
licence shall, notwithstanding its expiry under
this sub-section, continue to be effective for a
period of 30 days from such expiry’ stood
omitted by the Amendment Act, 2019.
29. Thus, going by the plain words of the
statute, as is the first rule of interpretation, it
would mean that Section 14 of the 1988 Act, as
it stands today, does not provide for the
licence to continue after its expiry even for a
single day; however, before the Amendment
Act, 2019, the then-existing proviso made the
date extendable automatically by a further
period of 30 days from the date of its expiry.
30. Moving on, Section 15 of the 1988 Act only
extends the period by which an expired licence
would be renewed, meaning thereby, that the
same licence would continue, but is silent
about what happens during the interregnum
i.e., after expiry but before renewal. The 1988
Act, as it stands now, the first proviso to sub-
section (1) of Section 15, gives a window to a
person for renewal of his existing licence,
which starts one year prior to the date of theSignature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI W.P.(C) 17015/2025 Page 13 of 18
Signing Date:25.03.2026
19:05:53
expiry of the licence and continues for one
year post-expiry. Earlier, before the
Amendment Act, 2019, this period used to be
only within 30 days of the date of expiry.
Moreover, the stipulation in the said proviso
requiring the licence to be renewed with effect
from the date of its renewal remains
unchanged. The changes made in sub-sections
(3) and (4) of Section 15 of the 1988 Act relate
only to the fee payable for renewal, which
have no bearing on the present cases.
31. When Sections 14 and 15 of the 1988 Act
are harmoniously construed, keeping in mind
the principles restated in A Raja v. D
Kumar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1033, it is
clear, to our minds, that a licence no more
automatically extends beyond the period of its
expiry, as was provided for in the unamended
last proviso to Section 14 of the 1988 Act.
This deliberate omission by the Legislature
cannot be labelled cosmetic. In this
regard, State of Uttar Pradesh v. Malik Zarid
Khalid, (1988) 1 SCC 145 is instructive…
XXX
32. Hypothetically, a case may arise where a
person renews his licence regularly, such that
he may have a licence for many years in
continuity inasmuch as the initial licence
granted to him gets renewed from time to
time, before the existing licence expires. This
could operate in a cycle, where the said
person keeps renewing the licence before
expiry. Such person would come within the
scope of eligibility as prescribed in the
Notifications. However, after the Amendment
Act, 2019, as per the 1988 Act, from the very
next day after the date of expiry, without
renewal, the person holding an expired
licence is incompetent to drive the vehicles he
had such licence for, meaning thereby, that
there is a legal disability for driving. Coming
back to the present case, the Notifications are
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI W.P.(C) 17015/2025 Page 14 of 18
Signing Date:25.03.2026
19:05:53
for recruitment to the posts of Driver. It
cannot be lost sight of or denied that driving
is not merely a qualification on paper but
also involves hands-on experience coupled
with regular practice. A lack of practice may
hinder a person’s capability of being able to
drive a vehicle, especially if the vehicle is to
be used for police purposes and/or for
disaster response/recovery, as is the case
herein. Thus, on an overall consideration, the
requirement/condition that for the last two
years continuously preceding the date(s) of
the Notifications, the candidates should
possess driving licences cannot be termed
unreasonable. The matter can be looked at
from another lens. Licences, under the
unamended provision, were issued for not
less than 3 years at the first instance and/or
on renewal until the time a person attained
the age of 50 years. Thus, once a licence was
issued for a minimum of 3 years, if the
intention of the Appellant was that a person
should merely possess a licence for the last
two years, the usage of the term
‘continuously’ was redundant in the
Notifications. As such, we would have to
afford due weightage to the same in context
of the Notifications at hand.
33. The Act as it stands now clearly stipulates
that from the date of expiry of licence, its
holder is barred under law from driving. The
theory that once a licence is renewed, even
after a gap, the renewal would operate from a
back date implying that the licence was
continuing and valid even for and during the
interregnum cannot be countenanced. For
instance, even if the licence is continuously
valid for more than two years preceding the
date of Notifications, there can be a situation
where the holder of the licence may be
inflicted with debarment/suspension of
licence, in the context of Sections 19 to 23 of
1988 Act, for a period of time. Stricto sensu,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI W.P.(C) 17015/2025 Page 15 of 18
Signing Date:25.03.2026
19:05:53
the same licence, once such period of time
elapses, would be valid but as per the
Notifications, the said person would be
ineligible to even apply for the posts of driver,
if such debarment/suspension was within two
years from the date(s) of the Notifications.
Thus, we have no doubt in mind that for the
term ‘continuously’ for the previous two years
has to be given a straight-forward
interpretation as per the literal meaning
showing the actual legal and uninterrupted
capacity of the person concerned for driving
for at least two years continuously prior to the
date(s) of the Notifications. We need not look
too far or delve too deep for the meaning of
the term ‘continuously’, as for the purposes of
the present adjudication, it would suffice to
refer to Black’s Law Dictionary, Revised
4th Edition, 1968 at Page 393, which defines
the said term as ‘Uninterruptedly; in unbroken
sequence; without intermission or cessation;
without intervening time; with continuity or
continuation’.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
32. Applying the aforesaid legal position to the present case, it is
evident that from 11.07.2022 till 05.08.2022, the respondent did not
possess a valid and effective HMV license. On the crucial date, that is,
29.07.2022, his license had not been renewed. The statutory scheme does
not permit this Court to consider the renewal retrospectively and validate
the period of expiry, so as to cure the respondent’s ineligibility.
Therefore, we are of the view that on the date of eligibility, the
respondent did not fulfil the eligibility conditions as provided under the
Notice dated 08.07.2022.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI W.P.(C) 17015/2025 Page 16 of 18
Signing Date:25.03.2026
19:05:53
33. We also do not find merit in the submission of the respondent that
as he had applied for renewal, the administrative delays should not
prejudice him. It is well settled that eligibility conditions as on the cut-
off date are sacrosanct and cannot be diluted on equitable considerations.
To hold otherwise would amount to rewriting the recruitment Notice.
34. The respondent’s contention based on legitimate expectation is
equally untenable. The Offer of Appointment issued to the respondent
was expressly provisional and subject to verification of documents. No
vested right accrued merely because the respondent cleared successive
stages of the selection process. Respondent’s participation in the process
does not cure the foundational ineligibility existing on the crucial date.
The respondent’s submission that the license was verified at earlier
stages of the recruitment process is also misconceived. Verification at an
intermediate stage does not estop the petitioners from enforcing
eligibility conditions at the stage of final scrutiny. Clause 15.16 of the
Notice preserves the respondents’ authority to cancel candidature even
after issuance of an offer if ineligibility is detected.
35. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the learned
Tribunal erred in importing a “beneficial and purposive interpretation” to
the Act when the statutory amendment leaves no room for such
elasticity. The renewal of the respondent’s license on 05.08.2022 cannot
relate back to validate its position as on the date of eligibility.
Consequently, the respondent did not fulfil the essential qualification as
on the closing date of the application and was not eligible for the post of
Constable (Driver)-Male.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI W.P.(C) 17015/2025 Page 17 of 18
Signing Date:25.03.2026
19:05:53
36. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court holds that the Impugned
Order dated 29.04.2025 passed by the learned Tribunal cannot be
sustained and is, accordingly, set aside.
37. The writ petition filed by the petitioners is allowed. The pending
application stands disposed of.
38. There shall be no order as to costs.
MADHU JAIN, J.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J.
MARCH 25, 2026/P
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI W.P.(C) 17015/2025 Page 18 of 18
Signing Date:25.03.2026
19:05:53