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 |
|
| Precedent Value | Binding on recruitment authorities and all subordinate courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Overrules the High Court judgment; affirms literal interpretation of Sections 14 & 15, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 |
| Type of Law | Statutory interpretation; administrative/recruitment law under the Motor Vehicles Act |
| Questions of Law | Whether a driving licence that expired and was renewed after a gap can be treated as “possessed continuously” for two years prior to a recruitment notification under Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as amended by the 2019 Act. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Supreme Court held that after expiry a driving licence does not automatically continue; the 2019 Amendment extended only the window for renewal (one year before or after expiry) but did not backdate continuity. “Continuously” requires actual unexpired validity. A subsequent driving test does not cure an ineligible break. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Recruitment notifications required two years’ continuous valid LMV/HMV licence. Many applicants had licences that expired and were later renewed. Single Judge deemed the post-expiry renewals backdated. High Court affirmed. State Board appealed to Supreme Court challenging that breaks in validity are disqualifying. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All recruitment authorities and subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts and tribunals dealing with recruitment and licence-continuity questions |
| Overrules | Division Bench of the Telangana High Court in Writ Appeals Nos. 877/2023, 972/2023, 973/2023, 974/2023 & WA(SR) No.38269/2023 |
| Distinguishes | Decisions treating post-expiry renewals as uninterrupted continuity in eligibility criteria |
| Follows | The Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shaanabasappa & Ors. (2025) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The 2019 Amendment to Section 15 only extends the window for renewal (one year before/after expiry) but does not resurrect a licence’s validity during the interregnum.
- Deletion of the 30-day proviso in Section 14 means licences cease to be effective immediately upon expiry.
- “Continuously” must be read literally; any break—even if subsequently cured—disqualifies candidates for whom two-year continuous possession is a threshold.
- A subsequent driving-test stage cannot cure statutory ineligibility rooted in licence expiry.
- Recruitment authorities must verify actual licence validity dates, not rely on back-dating under Section 15.
- Subordinate courts and tribunals should not follow High Court orders treating renewals as retroactive continuity.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Literal Interpretation: The omission of the 30-day post-expiry proviso in Section 14 demonstrates legislative intent to end automatic continuation at expiry.
- Harmonious Construction: Section 15’s renewal window enlarges only the timeframe to renew, not the licence’s effective period prior to renewal.
- Interpretive Principle: Following State of Uttar Pradesh v. Malik Zarid Khalid, deliberate statutory changes must be given full effect.
- Definition of “Continuously”: Black’s Law Dictionary defines as “without intermission,” so any gap breaks continuity.
- Driving Test Stage: Designed to assess skill, not to cure disqualifying statutory gaps.
- Equality and Fairness: Permitting post-expiry back-dating would unfairly advantage those who relied on erroneous interim orders and harm others who did not apply.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellant (Recruitment Board / State)
- Sections 14 & 15 as amended show no grace-period beyond expiry; renewal takes effect only from actual renewal date.
- Amendment Act, 2019 removed the 30-day grace and did not intend to backdate licence validity.
- Candidates with licence gaps were rightly disqualified under the Notifications.
Private Respondents / Writ Petitioners
- Legislative purpose in the 2019 Amendment was to liberalize renewal; Statement of Objects envisaged delays.
- One-year pre- and post-expiry window shows intent to avoid penalizing genuine delays.
- Subsequent driving-test filter ensures only competent drivers proceed, neutralizing any gap concerns.
Factual Background
On 25.04.2022 and 20.05.2022 the Telangana Police Recruitment Board notified 325 driver posts requiring two-year continuous LMV/HMV licence. Some candidates’ licences expired and were renewed after gaps up to 294 days. A Single Judge held post-expiry renewals counted from expiry; High Court affirmed. The Board’s appeals invoked Supreme Court review of whether any licence-validity gap disqualified candidates.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 14 (pre-2019) included a 30-day post-expiry licence continuation; proviso deleted by the 2019 Amendment.
- Section 15 (pre-2019) allowed renewal within 30 days back-dating to expiry; post-2019 window extended to one year before/after expiry, but expressly renewals take effect from renewal date.
- Impact: Renewal windows do not re-establish uninterrupted validity; interregnum remains a statutory gap.
- No “reading-in” of continuity during expiry gap; strict textual reading required.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No separate or dissenting opinions; decision delivered unanimously by Justice Amanullah and Justice Chandran.
Alert Indicators
- 🔄 Conflicting Decisions – Overturns the Telangana High Court’s broad back-dating approach under the 2019 Amendment.