Renewal Of Driving Licence After A Gap Will Not Operate Back From Date Of Its Expiry : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has upheld the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board's interpretation of eligibility conditions for driver posts, ruling that candidates whose driving licences had expired and were renewed after a gap cannot be treated as having held a licence “continuously” for the prescribed period, even if the renewal was within one year of expiry.

The Court ruled that a candidate must possess a driving licence “continuously for a period of full two years” for the recruitment to police and fire service driver posts, holding that any gap between expiry and renewal of a licence breaks continuity, even if the licence is later renewed within the permissible statutory window.

“going by the plain words of the statute, as is the first rule of interpretation, it would mean that Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 Act, as it stands today, does not provide for the licence to continue after its expiry even for a single day…”, observed a bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and SVN Bhatti, while setting aside the Telangana High Court's decision which allowed the candidates to participate in the selection process, despite their license being expired, though they were renewed subsequently.

The Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board had issued notifications in April–May 2022 to fill 325 posts of Police Constable (Driver) and Driver Operator in the Fire Services. One of the essential eligibility conditions required candidates to have possessed a valid LMV/HMV driving licence “continuously for a period of full two years and above as on the date of the notification.”

Several candidates whose licences had expired during the two-year period preceding the notification date, but were renewed later within the one-year window permitted under the Motor Vehicles Act, were allowed by the High Court to participate in the selection process. The High Court reasoned that since renewal takes effect from the date of expiry, there was no break in continuity.

Challenging this interpretation, the Recruitment Board approached the Supreme Court, contending that once a licence expires and is not immediately renewed, the holder becomes legally incompetent to drive during that interregnum, thereby violating the “continuous” requirement.

The High Court took the view that once an expired driving licence was renewed, it would be treated as having continued from the date of expiry, and therefore any gap in the interregnum would not affect the candidates' eligibility, even though they had applied in the selection process after their licences had expired.

Examining the statutory scheme, the Court placed significant reliance on the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, which deleted the earlier proviso granting a 30-day grace period after expiry of a licence. The Court noted that under the amended law, a licence ceases to be valid immediately upon expiry, and unless renewed, the holder suffers a legal disability to drive from the very next day.

Applying the law, the judgment authored by Justice Amanullah found the High Court's interpretation to be erroneous, holding that such “relation back” operates only for the validity of the document, not for assessing continuous lawful entitlement to drive under recruitment rules.

Interpreting the term “continuously” in its plain meaning, “uninterrupted, without break or cessation”, the Court observed that any period during which a candidate was not legally authorised to drive constitutes a break in continuity. The interregnum between expiry and renewal, even if short, was therefore fatal to eligibility.

“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.”, the Court said.

“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.”, the Court held.

"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," the Court stated.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, holding that the candidates whose licences had expired and were renewed after a gap within the relevant two-year period did not satisfy the requirement of continuous possession of a driving licence and were therefore ineligible.

Cause Title: TELANGANA STATE LEVEL POLICE RECRUITMENT BOARD VERSUS PENJARLA VIJAY KUMAR & ORS. ETC. (and connected case)

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1235

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) 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 Respondent(s) 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.