Does a Driving Licence Renewed After Expiry Still Qualify as “Continuously Held” for Recruitment Requiring Two-Year Continuity?

 

Summary

Category Data
Court Supreme Court of India
Case Number C.A. No.-014865-014869 – 2025
Diary Number 10771/2024
Judge Name HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
Bench

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN

Concurring or Dissenting Judges HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. V. N. BHATTI (concurring)
Precedent Value Binding authority
Overrules / Affirms Overrules the Division Bench and Single Judge judgments of the Telangana High Court dated 03.10.2023 and interim orders dated 13.03.2023/28.03.2023
Type of Law Statutory interpretation of Motor Vehicles Act; administrative/recruitment law
Questions of Law
  • Whether a driving licence renewed after expiry (within one year) under amended Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can be treated as continuously held for two years as required by recruitment notifications.
  • Whether any gap between expiry and renewal breaks the “continuous possession” requirement.
Ratio Decidendi

The amendment of Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 extended the window for renewal (one year before or after expiry) but did not revive licence validity post-expiry.

The repeal of the 30-day proviso in Section 14 means that from the date of expiry a licence ceases to be valid until renewal.

A recruitment notification requiring “continuous” validity for two years must be satisfied by actual, uninterrupted legal competence to drive during that period.

A subsequent driving test does not cure non-compliance with the threshold continuity requirement.

Judgments Relied Upon
  • Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shaanabasappa & Ors. (S.L.P. Nos.19830-19832 of 2022)
  • Ram Babu Tiwari v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2008) 8 SCC 165
  • New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh Chandra Aggarwal (2009) 15 SCC 761
  • Ishwar Chandra v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2007) 10 SCC 650
Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court
  • Plain-meaning and purposive interpretation of Sections 14 and 15 M.V. Act
  • Deliberate omission of the 30-day validity in Section 14 post-amendment
  • Black’s Law Dictionary definition of “continuously”
  • Principle that legislative omissions are significant (State of Uttar Pradesh v. Malik Zarid Khalid)
Facts as Summarised by the Court

The Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board issued two notifications in April/May 2022 requiring candidates to possess valid LMV/HMV licences “continuously for a period of full two years” as on the notification dates.

Some applicants whose licences had expired within the two-year window but were later renewed applied. The High Court allowed them; this Court reversed that decision.

Practical Impact

Category Impact
Binding On All courts and recruitment authorities
Persuasive For High Courts; administrative tribunals; other recruitment bodies
Overrules Division Bench and Single Judge judgments in WA Nos.877/2023, 972/2023, 973/2023, 974/2023 and WA(SR) No.38269/2023 of the Telangana High Court
Distinguishes High Court’s interim orders dated 13.03.2023/28.03.2023 allowing post-expiry renewals to count as continuous
Follows Supreme Court precedents on construction of licence-renewal provisions (Shaanabasappa; Ram Babu Tiwari; Ishwar Chandra)

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

  • Clarifies that the one-year revival window under amended Section 15 does not equate to licence validity during the interregnum; expiry creates a legal break.
  • Confirms that omission of the 30-day post-expiry proviso from Section 14 means no automatic continuation of licence validity after expiry.
  • Recruitment notifications requiring “continuous” licence possession must be satisfied by uninterrupted legal competence to drive.
  • Subsequent driving tests do not cure non-compliance with statutory entry conditions.
  • Lawyers can cite this ruling to resist the inclusion of candidates whose licences expired (even if renewed within one year) in recruitment processes.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

  1. Statutory Text and Amendment – Section 14’s 30-day grace after expiry was deleted by the 2019 Amendment. Section 15 now allows renewal applications one year before or after expiry, but renewal dates run from the actual renewal date.
  2. Effect of Omission – The deliberate deletion of Section 14’s proviso signifies that no validity survives expiry.
  3. Continuity Requirement – A recruitment condition requiring “continuous” licence possession for two years must reflect unbroken legal authority to drive.
  4. Legislative Intent and Precedent – Plain-meaning and purposive interpretation show no backdating of validity beyond expiry. Prior SC decisions confirm that licences renewed post-expiry take effect only from renewal date.
  5. Driving Test Irrelevant to Entry Threshold – The driving test is a performance check and does not waive statutory eligibility criteria.

Arguments by the Parties

Appellant (Recruitment Board):

  • The 2019 Amendment removed the 30-day grace-period and extended only the window for applying for renewal, not licence validity.
  • Any gap post-expiry breaks the two-year continuity requirement, rendering applicants ineligible.

Private Respondents (Candidates):

  • Legislative intent was to liberalise renewal, and renewal should be backdated to the expiry date if done within one year.
  • High Court correctly held that post-renewal validity relates back to expiry, preserving continuity.

Factual Background

On 25 April and 20 May 2022, the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board published notifications for 325 driver posts requiring candidates to have held valid LMV/HMV licences “continuously for a full two years” as on the notification dates. Some candidates whose licences had expired within that two-year span but were later renewed challenged their exclusion. The Telangana High Court allowed them, but this Court reversed, holding that any expiry breaks continuity.

Statutory Analysis

  • Section 14 (pre-amendment proviso deleted): No validity beyond expiry.
  • Section 15(1) (amended): Renewal window extended to one year before/after expiry; renewal effective from date of renewal.
  • Sections 15(3)–(4): Fee changes only; no impact on validity.
  • Conclusion: The statute does not permit deeming a licence to have been continuously valid during any gap between expiry and renewal.

Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary

Justice S. V. N. Bhatti delivered a concurring judgment, agreeing fully with the majority’s reasoning and the outcome.

Alert Indicators

  • 🚨 Breaking Precedent – Reverses High Court’s backdating approach under recruitment rules
  • ✔ Precedent Followed – Interprets Sections 14 and 15 consistent with earlier Supreme Court rulings
  • 🔄 Conflicting Decisions – In conflict with the Telangana High Court’s Division Bench judgment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Comments

No comments to show.