The Division bench of Justices R Devdas and K Manmadha Rao noted that the authorities erred by blindly accepting experience certificates issued by State owned transport corporations for inspector recruitments, which claimed experience in repairing Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV) and Heavy Passenger Vehicles (HPV) fitted with petrol engines, when no such vehicles have existed in India for decades.

“…the acceptance of certificates issued by KSRTC, BMTC and the other State owned Transport Corporations indicating that the candidate has experience in repairs of HGV and HPV petrol vehicles, at the hands of the KPSC/Commissioner of the Transport Department is clearly unreasonable, knowing fully well that for the past several decades there are no petrol vehicles in the category of HGV and HPV in India, the statement made in such certificates issued by the State owned Corporations are a blatant lie. The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, has therefore, rightly deleted the said provision, having noticed the anomaly…”, the court noted.

The court made the observation in a batch of writ petitions filed by the State as as well as the unsuccessful candidates, aggrieved by the KSAT (Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal) orders about the disputed recruitment notification dated from February 2016, for the post of 150 Motor Vehicle Inspectors.

The eligibility condition under Section 213(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, at the time of issuance of the disputed notification required 'work experience of at least one year in a reputed automobile workshop which undertakes repairs of both Light Motor vehicles, Heavy Goods Vehicles and Heavy Passenger Vehicles fitted with petrol and diesel engine'.

In 2019, the mandate of one year experience in three vehicle types was deleted via an amendment, followed by a notification issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways.

To recap, earlier, in another writ petition in 2021, a co-ordinate Bench of the High Court had set aside KSAT orders and directed KPSC to consider experience certificates, holding that the 2019 amendment could not operate retrospectively when the recruitment process had commenced in 2016.

Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, KPSC issued a Revised Final Selection List in October 2023. Experience certificates of selected candidates were forwarded to respective Deputy Commissioners for verification. Candidates who were still not issued appointment orders approached the KSAT again.

Before the High Court, two matters were raised:

1. Whether KSAT was right in declining to direct appointment on the ground that certificates did not disclose experience with HGVs and HPVs having petrol engines?
2. Whether KSAT was right in holding that aggregate experience from two or more automobile garages satisfying one year was sufficient?

Turning to the first question, the Court came down heavily on the State's recruitment machinery.

The AAG had conceded that no petrol engines exist in the HGV and HPV category in India for the past many decades. Yet, KPSC and the Transport Commissioner had accepted certificates issued by corporations, indicating experience in repairing HGV and HPV petrol vehicles.

The Bench further observed as below:

“…Therefore, the action of the KPSC and the Commissioner, Transport Department, in blindly accepting the certificates issued by the State owned Transport Corporations, knowing fully well that they do not maintain or repair HPVs and HGVs having petrol engines and on the other hand, declining the candidature of many others whose certificates reveal the truth that they have not dealt with such vehicles, is nothing but travesty of justice. The Commissioner, Transport Department, shall not be permitted to reject the candidature of any selected candidate or decline to issue appointment order on the ground that he/she does not have the experience in HGV or HPV petrol vehicles…”.

Thereafter, the court invoked the maxim of lex non cogit ad impossibilia and impotentia excusat legam. Accordingly, the Division Bench held that courts can't remain when authorities themselves prescribe standards that are impossible to meet, knowing fully well that they can't be met.

Relying on the seven-Judge Bench decision in In Re: Presidential Poll, the Court observed:

“….When it appears that the performance of the formalities prescribed by a statute has been rendered impossible by circumstances over which the persons interested had no control... the circumstances will be taken as a valid excuse…”, the court said.

Noting the above, the court disposed of the plea, by quashing the KSAT orders that declined candidatures on unjust grounds, and directing reconsideration of such candidatures.

On the second question, the Court noted that the provision was not fully clear, and it must not be read to mean that a candidate must possess one year's experience in all three types of vehicles, fitted with both petrol and diesel engines.

During the hearing, the Additional Advocate General told the court that if a candidate had worked in a garage undertaking repairs of all prescribed vehicle types for over one year, the requirement stood satisfied. There was no requirement that the candidate should have dealt with all three vehicle types every day, the state said.

Relying on precedents, the court also held as below:

“There can be different interpretations of the provision and surely the provision cannot be read to mean that a candidate must possess work experience of at least one year in all the three types of vehicles – LMV, HGV and HPV, fitted with petrol and diesel engine…Therefore, when there is ambiguity or vagueness in the relevant provision, in prescribing the qualification, then the benefit should be given to the candidates instead of rejecting their candidature…”

Hence, the Court upheld KSAT's conclusion that combined experience acquired in various workshops dealing with all three types of vehicles was sufficient.

“…in all such cases, the Commissioner, Department of Transport, should reconsider the candidature of such candidates and proceed to issue appointment orders, if on an aggregate, it is found that the workshops/garages where the candidate has worked, have dealt with all the three types of vehicles and the combined experience is more than one year. Similarly, appointment orders shall be issued to all such candidates who fulfill all the other requirements except the experience in HGVs, HPVs with petrol engines…”, the court concluded.