Statutory requirement for a valid driving license is a mandatory eligibility condition that a learner’s license cannot satisfy.

The Petitioner applied for the post of Sub-Inspector (SI) in Delhi Police pursuant to a 2019 notification issued by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC).

Paragraph 7.6 of the notification mandated that male candidates possess a valid Driving License for LMV (Motorcycle and Car) by the date of the Physical Endurance and Measurement Test (PEMT); no such condition was stipulated for female candidates.

The Petitioner qualified for Paper-I and obtained a learner’s license on June 8, 2020.

At the PEMT held on December 24, 2020, the Petitioner produced only the learner’s license, as he had not yet obtained a permanent license.

He eventually obtained a permanent license on March 26, 2021.

Consequently, the Respondents disqualified him for the post of SI in Delhi Police but selected him for SI in the CISF.

The Petitioner challenged the requirement as discriminatory and sought a waiver for the delay citing COVID-19 restrictions.

Rules 7 and 14(a) of the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980 (as amended in 2018), where Rule 7 explicitly mandates a valid LMV license for male SI candidates at the PEMT stage, while Rule 14(a) contains no such requirement for females.

Supreme Court precedent in Alka Ojha v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, which established that a learner’s license cannot be equated with a "driving license" as defined under Section 2(10) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for eligibility purposes.

Statutory eligibility dates must be strictly adhered to and cannot be overridden by pleas of equity.

The Court held that the notification was not discriminatory because it was rooted in the distinct statutory provisions of Rule 7 (for males) and Rule 14(a) (for females) of the Delhi Police Rules, which the Petitioner had not challenged.

Regarding the learner’s license, the Court reasoned that such a license is issued solely for the purpose of learning and carries inherent limitations, unlike a regular driving license; thus, it does not satisfy the eligibility criteria.

The Court rejected the Petitioner's COVID-19 plea, noting that the recruitment notification was published in October 2019, providing ample time for the Petitioner to secure a license before the pandemic-induced lockdowns began in March 2020.

The Court emphasized that since the requirement of a license was a mandatory statutory rule, the Respondents could not accept a license issued after the PEMT date.

The Court clarified that a learner’s license is not equivalent to a permanent driving license for recruitment eligibility.

The Petitioner’s selection for the post of SI in the CISF remained undisturbed, as a license was not a prerequisite for that position.

All pending applications were dismissed as infructuous.