Renewal Of Driving Licence After A Gap Will Not Relate Back To Date Of Expiry: Supreme Court Dismisses Candidates’ Pleas On Driver Posts Eligibility
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice S. V. N. Bhatti has allowed the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board’s appeals, set aside the Telangana High Court’s directions, and dismissed the petitions filed by candidates who sought to be treated as eligible for police and fire service driver recruitment. The dispute arose from recruitment notifications requiring applicants to have held the prescribed driving licence continuously for a full two years as on the notification dates, while some candidates had licences that expired and were renewed after a gap, though within one year of expiry. The Bench held that any interval between expiry and renewal breaks continuity for this eligibility condition, even if renewal is sought within the statutory one-year window and directed the recruitment to be completed within three months.
The appeals arose from a recruitment process for driver posts pursuant to notifications dated 25.04.2022 and 20.05.2022, which stipulated technical qualification requirements including holding either an LMV (Transport with Badge Number) or HMV licence, or both, “continuously for a period of full two years and above” as on the dates of the notifications.
The recruiting authority’s position was that the stipulation required an uninterrupted, unbroken period of licence validity for at least two years prior to the notification dates. Candidates whose licences had expired and were renewed after a time-gap contended that renewals made within the period contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (as amended in 2019) should be treated as preserving eligibility, with reliance placed on the enlarged renewal window and the fact that the recruitment process included a subsequent driving test mechanism.
The High Court proceedings resulted in orders that treated such candidates as eligible; the recruiting authority challenged those outcomes before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court noted that the impugned High Court judgment affirmed the Single Judge’s order, and that the Division Bench did not engage with the issue beyond extracting the Single Judge’s order.
The Court recorded that the core issue was “as to how the technical qualification with regard to possessing either a LMV (Transport with Badge Number) or HMV Licence, or both put together, continuously for a period of full two years and above as on the date of the Notifications, is to be construed.” It noted the appellant’s stand that the notifications required the candidate to have possessed the licence “uninterruptedly without any break for at least two years prior to the date(s) of the Notifications.”
On the legal consequence of licence expiry, the Bench stated: “The Act as it stands now clearly stipulates that from the date of expiry of licence, its holder is barred under law from driving.” It rejected the approach that renewal after a gap could retrospectively cure the intervening period, observing: “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.”
Interpreting the term “continuously” in the notifications, the Court stated it had “no doubt” that the requirement must be given a “straight-forward interpretation” reflecting “actual legal and uninterrupted capacity” to drive for at least two continuous years prior to the notification dates. It further recorded that, for present purposes, it was sufficient to refer to Black’s Law Dictionary defining the term as “Uninterruptedly; in unbroken sequence; without intermission or cessation; without intervening time; with continuity or continuation”.
The respondents’ reliance on the recruitment driving test was not accepted. The Court recorded: “We are afraid such contention cannot be accepted.” It stated that the continuous-licence condition “cannot be negated only because in the driving test, a person may pass,” giving reasons including the position of similarly-situated persons who may not have applied believing themselves ineligible, and the nature of the driving test as an additional verification step rather than a waiver of the entry criterion. It added that accepting the contention would “amount to putting the cart before the horse,” since subsequent stages cannot confer entitlement despite not meeting the threshold criterion.
On the High Court’s approach, the Supreme Court stated: “We are constrained to record that the Division Bench did not engage with the issue…without assigning any reasons as to why it was ‘not inclined to interfere’.”
The Court ordered that “the Final Order/Judgment dated 03.10.2023 and the interim Orders dated 13.03.2023 and 28.03.2023 passed by the Single Judges are set aside. Resultantly, the underlying writ petitions stand dismissed. The recruitment process be completed by the Appellant expeditiously and at any rate, within three months reckoned from today. No order as to costs,” and stated that the civil appeals arising from Diary No.12553/2024 would stand allowed “in terms similar” to the connected civil appeals.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. P. Srinivas Reddy, Adv. Ms. Aswathi M.k., AOR Mr. K Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. Srikanth Varma Mudunuru, Adv. Mr. C.Kranthi Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Nikhil Goel, Sr. Adv. Mr. P. Mohith Rao, AOR Ms. J. Akshitha, Adv. Mr. Eugene S Philomene, Adv. Ms. Riddhi Jain, Adv. Mr. Adithya K Roy, Adv. Mr. Vikas Mehta, AOR Mr. Basa Mithun Shashank, Adv. Ms. Ankita Gupta, AOR Mr. Kushagra Pandey, Adv. Mr. Ved P. Singh, Adv.
Case Title: Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board v Penjarla Vijay Kumar & Ors. Etc.;
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1452
Case Number: Civil Appeals No. of 2025 [@ Special Leave Petitions (Civil) No.8684-8688 of 2024]
Bench: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice S. V. N. Bhatti;
