- (1.)J. C. S. Rawat, J. This special appeal under Rule 5 Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules has been filed against the judgment and order dated 27-07-2006 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1026 of 2006 (S/s), Manoj Kumar Ravi Vs. District Magis trate & others, whereby the learned Sin gle Judge has dismissed the p
(2.)A writ petition bearing No. 1026/ 2006 (S/s) was filed before the learned Single Judge by the writ petitioner-Manoj Kumar Ravi (Now 'appellant' in the present special appeal) for the fol lowing reliefs : (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 15-07-2006 passed by respondent no. 1 which is Annexure No. 11 to this writ pe tition. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus com manding and directing the re spondents to reinstate the peti tioner in his erstwhile service with all consequential benefit. (iii) Issue any other order or direc tion, which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the peti tioner. (iv) Award cost of the writ petition to the petitioner. 2. The facts in nutshell are that the writ petitioner was appointed as driver in the office of District Administration, Dehradun vide order dated 20-04-2006. Pursuant to the said appointment order, the petitioner joined his services on 25-04-2006 in the office of Tehsildar Kalsi. The writ petitioner moved an application dated 28-04-2006 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) to the District Magistrate, Dehradun with the prayer to transfer him from Tehsil Kalsi to some other plain area in view of the fact that he does not properly know how to drive vehicle in hilly region. Thereafter, the petitioner vide letter dated 01-05- 2006 (Annexure) 4 to the special appeal) requested the District Magistrate (respondent no. 1) to treat his earlier letter as withdrawn or cancelled. Thereafter, the District Mag istrate constituted a Committee compris ing of (a) Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Dehradun, (b) assistant Regional Officer, Haridwar and (c) Regional In spector (Prawidhik), Dehradun to find out as to whether the writ petitioner knew to drive the vehicle or not. The writ petitioner appeared before the said Com mittee for driving test. After taking the driving test of the writ petitioner, the Committee found that the writ petitioner was not a skilled driver. The report of driving test of the writ petitioner was submitted to the District Magistrate through the R. T. O. vide its letter dated 07-06-2006. The District Magistrate, Dehradun vide notice dated 14-06-2006 (Annexure-9 to the writ petitioner) issued a show cause notice to the petitioner as to why he should not be terminated from the service on the grounds that he him self has admitted in his letter dated 28-04-2006 that he is unable to drive the vehicle in hilly regions; he was found unfit in the driving test conducted by the Committee and the Tehsildar, Kalsi vide its letter dated 27-05-2006 has informed that the writ petitioner did not drive the vehicle from the date of his appoint ment. Vide letter dated 20-06-2006 the writ petitioner has submitted his reply pursuant to the show cause notice issued to him. Thereafter, the petitioner was ter minated from the service vide order dated 15-07-2006 passed by the District Magis trate (respondent no. 1 ). Feeling aggrieved by this, the writ petitioner has filed the writ petition before the Single Judge. 4. After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge has summarily dis missed the petition vide impugned order dated 2/-0/-2006. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the said or der, the present special appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Mr. Manoj Tiwari, learned coun sel for the writ petitioner contented that the driving licence (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) was issued in favour of the writ petitioner under section 9 of the Motor Vehicles Act and no authority except as provided under the Act how ever high can challenge the driving skill of a person holding a valid driving li cence; the driving licence of the writ petitioner has not been cancelled or re voked by the licencing authority and it still holds a valid driving licence. The District Magistrate or any other author ity cannot disqualify a person in the driv ing test or pass the order terminating the services of the writ petitioner on the basis that the writ petitioner did not have the skill of driving vehicle. Learned counsel for the respondents refuted the conten tion and supported the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 8. The writ petitioner has filed the copy of the valid driving licence to drive the motor vehicles and there is an en dorsement in the driving licence (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) that the writ petitioner is competent to drive on the hill roads w. e. f. 10-11-2002. The writ petitioner was appointed on the post of driver on 20-04-2006 and he made an application dated 28-04-2006 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) to the District Magistrate through the Tehsildar, Kalsi that the Tehsil Kalsi comes in hilly area and he is not able to drive the ve hicle in the hilly area, as such, he may be posted in any other Tehsil which comes in the plain area. The Tehsildar, Kalsi forwarded his application to the District Magistrate indicating that the writ petitioner has shown his inability to drive the vehicle in hilly area and he has further indicated in its recommendation that he was not able to drive the vehi cle. Thereafter, the District Magistrate constituted a committee comprising of (a) Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Dehradun, (b) Assistant Regional Trans port Officer, Haridwar and (c) Regional Inspector (Prawidhik), Dehradun to take the driving test of the writ petitioner and the committee was directed to submit its report. Perusal of the report submitted by the Committee (Annexure-12 to the writ petition) clearly reveals that the writ petitioner was unable to drive the vehi cle and he was found unfit to drive the vehicle. The District Magistrate on the basis of said report issued a notice to the writ petitioner as to why his services should not be terminated. Thereafter, the services of the writ petitioner were terminated. It is pertinent to mention here that the writ petitioner has himself admitted in his application dated 28-04-2006 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) that he is not able to drive the vehicle in hilly area, whereas his driving licence (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) con tained an endorsement that he was com petent to drive the vehicle in hill roads. Apart from this, the report of the com mittee also suggests that the writ peti tioner is unfit to drive the vehicle. In these situations, the respondents had no other option, but to terminate the serv ices of the writ petitioner. 9. The perusal of the record reveals that the writ petitioner was granted driv ing licence by the competent authority and he sought the employment on the basis of the driving licence issued by the authority. He was provided employment by the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate on his own admission as well as the driving test taken by the Commit tee terminated the services of the writ petitioner. The District Magistrate has not cancelled the driving licence of the writ petitioner because he has no author ity to cancel the same. Thus, the mere possession of driving licence did not con fer any right upon the writ petitioner that he is a competent driver to the satisfac tion of the employer. Thus, the services of the writ petitioner were rightly termi nated by the District Magistrate. 10. In view of the foregoing discus sion, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was justified in holding that the termination order of the peti tioner does not require any interference. Therefore, the special appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the special appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. .