Karnataka HC says MVI candidates need not prove experience repairing heavy vehicles with petrol engines, directs appointments for selected candidates who meet other criteria

The dispute arose from recruitment to 150 Motor Vehicle Inspector posts under a notification dated 4 February 2016. The qualification required at least one year’s work experience in a reputed automobile workshop undertaking repairs of light motor vehicles (LMVs), heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) and heavy passenger vehicles (HPVs), fitted with petrol and diesel engines

Following the High Court’s earlier directions in Sri Lokesh V.R. v. State of Karnataka, the KPSC issued a Revised Final Selection List on 26 October 2023 and candidates’ experience certificates were sent to Deputy Commissioners for verification

The State challenged the KSAT’s decision that experience aggregated across workshops could satisfy the one-year requirement; other candidates challenged rejection of their applications or non-issuance of appointment orders, including on grounds concerning vehicle categories, verification of workshops, or absence of experience with HGVs and HPVs having petrol engines

The High Court heard the State’s challenge together with the candidates’ petitions

1. Whether the one-year experience requirement could be met by aggregating experience gained at different workshops, rather than by having one year’s experience in each vehicle category

2. Whether selected candidates could be denied appointment for lacking experience with HGVs and HPVs fitted with petrol engines, notwithstanding that such vehicles were not in use in those categories

3. Whether candidates whose applications were rejected following adverse verification reports were entitled to reconsideration or fresh verification

The applicable qualification required one year’s work experience in a reputed automobile workshop undertaking repairs of LMVs, HGVs and HPVs fitted with petrol and diesel engines, as reflected in the recruitment requirement and the applicable Cadre and Recruitment Rules, 2013

The amendment to Section 213(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways notification dated 8 March 2019 removing the experience requirement could not retrospectively alter a recruitment process commenced in 2016

Under Parvaiz Ahmad Parry v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, ambiguity or vagueness in a prescribed qualification should be resolved in favour of the candidate rather than by treating the candidate as ineligible

The Court also invoked the maxim lex non cogit ad impossibilia—the law does not compel performance of the impossible—while recognising that impossibility does not, by itself, extinguish a provision’s mandatory character

The Court found that the qualification was ambiguous as to whether one year’s experience was required in each vehicle class or whether the period could be aggregated; the requirement did not expressly impose one year in every category. Since the authorities accepted experience where a candidate worked for over a year at one workshop handling all prescribed vehicle types, the Court held that qualifying experience could likewise be combined across workshops that dealt with those types, provided the aggregate exceeded one year

As to petrol-powered HGVs and HPVs, the State conceded that such vehicles had not existed in those categories for decades. The Court held that candidates could not be disadvantaged for lacking experience that was practically unavailable, and criticised the acceptance of certificates from State transport corporations asserting such experience while other candidates’ truthful certificates were rejected

For cases involving adverse workshop-verification reports, the Court directed reconsideration in light of its findings and, where necessary, fresh physical verification by the Deputy Commissioners

It allowed W.P. Nos. 5483/2025, 5701/2025, 16415/2025, 27642/2025, 4958/2026 and 21767/2026, quashed the specified KSAT orders, and directed appointment of the petitioners whose names appeared in the Revised Final Select List, with applicable benefits including seniority

It also allowed W.P. No. 25888/2025, quashed the KSAT order in Application No. 3837/2024 and directed appointment of the petitioner, whose name was on the revised list and who had more than one year’s experience across the vehicle types

Appointment orders were to issue within two months of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment; matters requiring fresh verification were to be reconsidered following fresh reports