No Deemed Continuity of Expired Driving Licences for Recruitment Eligibility after the 2019 Motor Vehicles Amendment

Commentary on Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board v. Penjarla Vijay Kumar & Ors., 2025 INSC 1452

1. Introduction

The Supreme Court of India’s decision in Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board v. Penjarla Vijay Kumar & Ors. (2025 INSC 1452, judgment dated 18 December 2025) is a significant pronouncement at the intersection of motor vehicles law and public employment recruitment.

The case arose out of recruitment to driver posts in the Telangana Police Transport Organisation and the Telangana State Disaster Response and Fire Services Department. The central controversy was narrow but legally complex:

How should the requirement that a candidate must have possessed a driving licence “continuously for a period of full two years and above as on the date of the Notification” be interpreted, after the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019?
Does a driving licence that expired but was renewed within one year after expiry, under amended Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, count as continuously held for purposes of recruitment eligibility?

The High Court of Telangana had answered this in favour of candidates whose licences had expired but were renewed within one year, treating them as continuously valid. The Supreme Court has now reversed that view.

The judgment establishes an important precedent: after the 2019 amendment, there is no grace period during which an expired driving licence remains “effective”, and renewal within one year after expiry does not retrospectively erase the break in legal validity for purposes that require continuous possession. Recruitment authorities are entitled to insist on actual, uninterrupted legal competence to drive.

2. Background and Facts

2.1 Recruitment Notifications

Two recruitment notifications issued by the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board (TSLPRB) form the backdrop:

Notification dated 25.04.2022 – for 100 posts of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT) Police Constable (Drivers) (Men) in the Police Transport Organisation.
- Technical qualification: Candidate must have possessed either LMV (Transport with Badge number) or HMV licence, or both, continuously for a period of full two years and above as on the date of the Notification.
Notification dated 20.05.2022 – for 225 posts of Driver Operator in the Telangana State Disaster Response and Fire Services Department.
- Technical qualification: Candidate must have possessed a valid HMV licence continuously for a period of two years and above as on the date of the Notification.

In total, 325 driver posts were notified. Both notifications additionally required a driving test (skill test) after physical efficiency test, with a minimum score of 50/100 to qualify.

2.2 Selection Process and Exclusion of Candidates

Skill (driving) tests were conducted from 2 March 2023 to 24 March 2023.
Only those with valid driving licences were permitted to participate in the written examination scheduled on 2 April 2023.

The private respondents (writ petitioners before the High Court) were excluded from the written examination because:

Their driving licences had expired at some point within the two years preceding the notification dates, and
They renewed their licences within one year of expiry, but after some gap – the gaps varied from 1 day to 294 days.

The Board (TSLPRB) treated these candidates as not satisfying the requirement of having possessed a valid licence continuously for two years immediately preceding the notifications.

2.3 High Court Proceedings

A batch of writ petitions was filed before a Single Judge of the Telangana High Court (e.g. WP No. 8571/2023 and analogous cases). The main plank of challenge was:

Under the amended Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a licence renewed within one year after expiry is in substance continuous; and
The legislative intent, reflected in the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the 2019 Amendment, was to take a more liberal view of delays in renewal.

The Single Judge:

By interim orders dated 13.03.2023 and 28.03.2023 directed TSLPRB to allow such candidates to participate in the skill test and written test, but not to declare their results.
By final judgment dated 30.06.2023 allowed the writ petitions, holding that there was no “break” in their licences because renewal took effect from the date of expiry, and directed that they be treated as eligible.

The TSLPRB’s writ appeals were dismissed by a Division Bench on 03.10.2023. The Division Bench, however, did not engage in an independent analysis; it merely reproduced the Single Judge’s reasoning and stated that it was “not inclined to interfere”.

2.4 Appeals before the Supreme Court

Two broad sets of appellants came before the Supreme Court:

TSLPRB (common appellant in Civil Appeals arising from SLP (C) Nos. 8684–8688 of 2024), contending that:
- The High Court wrongly diluted the eligibility condition requiring continuous licence validity.
Private appellants with continuously valid licences (appeals arising from Diary No. 12553 of 2024), contending that:
- Permitting ineligible candidates with broken licence validity to compete with them was unfair and contrary to the notification.

Leave was granted in all petitions; the Supreme Court decided the appeals together, as they raised a common core issue.

3. Summary of the Judgment

3.1 Core Holding

The Supreme Court allowed all appeals, set aside the Single Judge’s and Division Bench’s judgments, and dismissed the underlying writ petitions.

The Court held that:

After the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, there is no statutory grace period (not even one day) during which a driving licence remains effective after its date of expiry.
Section 15, as amended, merely provides an administrative window (one year before and one year after expiry) for applying for renewal of the same licence; it does not authorise a person to drive during the post-expiry period before renewal.
The recruitment notifications requiring that candidates must have possessed a valid licence “continuously for a period of (full) two years and above as on the date of the Notification” must be given their plain, literal meaning.
“Continuously” means legally uninterrupted validity with no break – whether due to expiry, suspension, or disqualification – in the two years preceding the notification date.
Candidates whose licences expired and were later renewed (even within one year) did not meet this condition and were rightly held ineligible by TSLPRB.

The Court directed TSLPRB to complete the recruitment process within three months.

3.2 Critique of the High Court

The Supreme Court was expressly critical of the Division Bench:

The Division Bench failed to engage with the central statutory issue and the consequences of the 2019 amendment.
It merely reproduced the Single Judge’s reasoning and, without independent analysis, declined to interfere.
The Supreme Court observed that such a non-speaking affirmance is inadequate in appellate adjudication, especially where important questions of statutory interpretation arise.

4. Detailed Legal Analysis

4.1 Statutory Framework: Sections 14 and 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act

4.1.1 Pre-amendment position

Before the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019:

Section 14(2) proviso – Every driving licence continued to be effective for 30 days after its expiry. This was a statutory grace period.
Section 15(1) – A licensing authority could renew a driving licence with effect from its date of expiry.
First proviso to Section 15(1) – If the renewal application was made more than 30 days after expiry:
- The licence would be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal, not from the date of expiry.

Thus, pre-amendment:

For 30 days after expiry, the licence remained “effective” (one could lawfully drive).
If renewal was within those 30 days, the renewed licence related back to the expiry date.
If renewal was after 30 days, there was a break in legal validity; the renewed licence was effective only from the renewal date.

4.1.2 Post-amendment position (after Act 32 of 2019)

The Amendment Act, 2019, effective from 01.09.2019, brought three crucial changes relevant here:

Deletion of the 30-day grace period:
- The proviso to Section 14(2) – “every driving licence shall … continue to be effective for a period of thirty days from such expiry” – was omitted.
- Result: No automatic post-expiry validity; a licence ceases to be legally effective on the date it expires.
Expansion of the renewal window in Section 15(1) proviso:
- New first proviso: If the application for renewal is made either one year prior to the date of expiry or within one year after the date of expiry, the licence shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal.
- The key phrase “with effect from the date of its renewal” remained unchanged; only the “30 days” period was replaced by “one year before/after expiry”.
Related changes to fees in Section 15(3)–(4):
- “Thirty days” was replaced by “one year” in sub-sections (3) and (4), expanding the timelines for normal and delayed renewal for fee purposes.

The Supreme Court’s reading:

Section 14, as amended, does not allow a licence to remain effective even for a single day after its expiry.
Section 15, as amended, only:
- Creates a wider window for the same licence to be renewed (thus avoiding fresh tests etc.), and
- Specifies that such renewal takes effect from the date of renewal, not from the date of expiry.
Crucially, Section 15 is silent about the legality of driving during the post-expiry, pre-renewal period; that question is answered by Section 14 and Section 3(1) (which requires an “effective” licence to drive), not by Section 15.

4.2 The Meaning of “Continuously” in the Recruitment Notifications

Both notifications required candidates to have possessed a valid driving licence:

“continuously for a period of full two years and above as on the date of this Notification” (25.04.2022 notification), and
“valid HMV License continuously for a period of two years and above as on date of this Notification” (20.05.2022 notification).

The Court notes that both sides agreed in principle that:

The candidate must have held a licence continuously during the two-year period immediately preceding the notification dates.

The dispute was what “continuously” means:

Respondents’ argument:
- If a licence expired but was renewed within one year, the renewal – being treated as a continuation of the same licence – results in there being “no break”.
TSLPRB’s argument:
- The word “continuously” must be given its plain meaning: uninterrupted legal validity with no gap due to expiry, suspension, or disqualification.
- Licences that had expired and were renewed after a gap fail this requirement; the period between expiry and renewal is a legal break.

The Supreme Court adopted the latter view. Relying on Black’s Law Dictionary (Revised 4th ed., 1968), it defined “continuously” as:

“Uninterruptedly; in unbroken sequence; without intermission or cessation; without intervening time; with continuity or continuation.”

The Court stressed that:

After deletion of the Section 14 proviso, a licence is not effective beyond its expiry date unless renewed.
A person driving after expiry but before renewal is legally disqualified from driving during that interregnum.
For recruitment, the Board could validly insist that candidates had an unbroken legal capacity to drive in the prior two years.
To read “continuous” as including a period of legal incompetence to drive would make the word “continuous” redundant, contrary to basic principles of construction.

4.3 Harmonious Construction of Sections 14 and 15

The Court applied the doctrine of harmonious construction:

Sections 14 and 15 must be read together so that each is given full effect and interpretations that make amendments meaningless or redundant are avoided.

Key reasoning:

The earlier 30-day grace period in Section 14 was expressly removed by Parliament.
If courts were to treat the one-year post-expiry period in Section 15(1) proviso as a de facto extended grace period during which one could lawfully drive:
- The deliberate omission of the 30-day grace period would be rendered otiose.
- This would contradict the text of Section 14 and the legislative choice to tighten post-expiry validity.
Instead, the extended period in Section 15(1):
- Simply broadens the time frame for applying for renewal of the same licence (to avoid fresh tests etc.).
- Does not confer any legal right to drive during the gap between expiry and renewal.

In support of this approach, the Court cited its earlier explanation of interpretive principles in A Raja v. D Kumar (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1033), reaffirming that:

Courts must ascertain legislative intent from the words actually used,
Must not read words into the statute, and
Must give meaningful effect to deliberate changes in statutory language.

To illustrate the importance of giving effect to changed language, the Court relied significantly on State of Uttar Pradesh v. Malik Zarid Khalid, (1988) 1 SCC 145. In that case, the Supreme Court:

Held that a substantive change in statutory wording cannot be glossed over as if the law had remained the same.
Warned against interpretations that effectively revert to the pre-amendment position despite clear textual change.

Applying that rationale here, the Court reasoned that:

Parliament deliberately omitted the grace-period proviso to Section 14.
It also changed the time frame in the Section 15 proviso from “30 days” to “one year before/after expiry”.
Cumulatively, these changes must be given full effect; they cannot be interpreted as merely extending the grace period from 30 days to one year.

4.4 Role of the 2019 Amendment’s Statement of Objects and Reasons

The private respondents had placed heavy reliance on the Statement of Objects and Reasons (SOR) to the 2019 Amendment, especially the clause referring to:

“increase the time limit for renewal of driving licence from one month to one year before and after the expiry date”.

They argued that this indicated a legislative intent to take a liberal view of delays and to treat licences renewed within one year as continuous.

The Supreme Court implicitly rejected this argument by:

Re-affirming that SOR cannot override clear statutory text.
Pointing out that:
- The SOR talks about increasing the time limit for renewal, which is an administrative facility.
- It does not say that a licence remains legally effective to drive during the entire post-expiry period.

Accordingly, the SOR could not be used to reintroduce, via interpretation, a grace period that Parliament had expressly removed from Section 14.

4.5 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

4.5.1 Insurance and licence-validity cases

The appellant Board relied on a line of cases concerning licence validity and insurer’s liability, decided under the pre-amendment regime:

Ram Babu Tiwari v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2008) 8 SCC 165
- Clarified that:
  - If renewal is applied for within 30 days of expiry, the licence is renewed from the date of expiry; during those 30 days the driver is deemed to hold a valid licence.
  - If the application is made after 30 days, renewal is only from the date of renewal; the driver did not have a valid licence in the interregnum, affecting insurer’s liability.
Ishwar Chandra v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2007) 10 SCC 650
- Held that where a renewal application is filed after expiry and after the 30-day grace period, and an accident occurs before such renewal, the driver did not have a valid licence on the accident date.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh Chandra Aggarwal, (2009) 15 SCC 761
- Reiterated that insurance cover requires the driver to hold an “effective driving licence”, and policy conditions often require that the person driving “holds or had held and has not been disqualified” from holding such licence.
Order dated 24.04.2025 in Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shaanabasappa & Ors., SLP (C) Nos. 19830–19832/2022
- Reiterated the pre-amendment Section 15(1) scheme (30-day window and effect from renewal date if beyond 30 days).

While these cases dealt with insurance liability and the pre-2019 framework, they reinforce a consistent principle:

A driving licence’s validity is tightly linked to the dates prescribed in the statute.
Driving during a period when the licence is not statutorily valid (whether because the grace period has expired or because no grace period exists) is tantamount to driving without a valid licence.

The Supreme Court in the present case extends that logic to the post-amendment framework, noting that the grace period provision itself has now been deleted.

4.5.2 Equality and fairness to non-applicants

In addressing the argument that the driving test would anyway assess actual competence and that the licence continuity requirement could be relaxed, the Court invoked:

Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 11 SCC 587:
- The Court held that granting relief to a candidate who was ineligible under the rules on the last date for application would be violative of Article 14, because:
  - Many similarly placed candidates might have not applied considering themselves ineligible.
  - Favouring an ineligible applicant would disadvantage those who complied with the rules.
Sudhir Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2024) 12 SCC 647:
- Reinforced that it would be unjust to interpret recruitment rules so as to favour those who applied despite ineligibility over others who did not apply in deference to the rules.

The Supreme Court applied this reasoning directly:

Many candidates whose licences had expired and were renewed late might have not applied because they correctly understood themselves to be ineligible under the “continuous” requirement.
To now confer the benefit of eligibility on those who applied despite this objective ineligibility (aided by interim orders) would be fundamentally unfair and contrary to the equality principle.

4.6 Rejection of the “Driving Test Cures All” Argument

The respondents argued that because:

Every candidate must anyway undergo and pass a driving skill test (minimum 50/100 marks),

the insistence on two years’ continuous licence validity was unnecessary or should be loosely interpreted.

The Supreme Court firmly rejected this:

The driving test is a subsequent quality-control mechanism to ensure ongoing practical competence and regular practice.
It is not a substitute for the entry-level eligibility requirement of continuous licence validity.
A candidate cannot claim eligibility merely because he performs well in later stages if he never met the threshold conditions prescribed in the notification.
Accepting such an argument would invert the process, “putting the cart before the horse”.

The Court also highlighted the functional rationale of the continuity requirement:

Driver posts in the police and disaster response services demand:
- Consistent driving practice,
- High levels of reflexes and vehicle control, and
- Ability to operate in emergency conditions.
A prolonged break in legal driving (e.g., due to expired licence) reasonably raises concerns about:
- Actual practice during that period, and
- Compliance with law and road-safety norms.
Therefore, the requirement of continuous licence validity for two years is rational and not arbitrary.

4.7 Suspensions and Disqualifications: A Broader Application of “Continuity”

The Court gave an important hypothetical to clarify the meaning of “continuously”:

Suppose a driver has a licence that, on paper, covers the two-year period, but:
- The licence was suspended or the driver was disqualified from driving under Sections 19–23 of the Motor Vehicles Act for any part of those two years.

In such a scenario:

Even if the licence resumed after the suspension period,
The driver did not possess a valid, effective licence continuously for the preceding two years.

Hence:

The term “continuous” encompasses any legal disability to drive, whether arising from:
- Expiry without renewal, or
- Suspension/disqualification.

This reinforces that the Court is insisting on actual legal capacity to drive, not merely possession of a documentary licence at some points in time.

5. Impact and Significance

5.1 On Recruitment to Driving Posts

This judgment has immediate and wide-ranging implications for recruitment processes that involve driving posts, particularly in:

Police forces,
Fire and disaster services, and
Public transport undertakings or other government driver cadres.

Key takeaways for recruiting authorities:

Strict enforcement of “continuous licence” conditions:
- If the notification uses the word “continuously” or similar, it will be interpreted literally.
- Any break in legal licence validity – even of one day – can render a candidate ineligible.
Renewal within one year after expiry does not salvage eligibility for criteria tied to continuous validity.
Driving tests cannot override entry-level conditions:
- Candidates failing eligibility criteria cannot seek to rely on merit in subsequent stages.

5.2 On Drivers and Licensing Practice

For drivers and licensing authorities, the judgment underscores:

No grace period after expiry:
- After 2019, a licence stops being effective on the date of expiry.
- Driving after expiry, even for a day, is driving without a valid licence.
Renewal window is administrative, not substantive:
- Applying within one year after expiry allows renewal of the same licence without fresh tests (subject to rules).
- It does not retrospectively make driving during the expired period lawful.
Practical advice:
- Renew well before the expiry date – the statute allows application up to one year in advance.
- Particularly for those aspiring to public driver posts, avoid any gap in licence validity.

5.3 On Road Safety and Legislative Intent

The decision is also consistent with the broader policy thrust of the 2019 Amendment:

The Amendment aimed to:
- Improve road safety,
- Strengthen enforcement of traffic norms, and
- Enhance accountability of drivers and transport systems.
By eliminating the 30-day grace period and insisting on strict licence validity, Parliament signalled a zero-tolerance approach to driving without an effective licence.

The Supreme Court’s interpretation aligns with this policy, ensuring that:

Administrative convenience in licence renewal does not undermine the core safety objective.
Government employers, especially in critical services, can insist on rigorous standards for drivers.

5.4 On Equality and Recruitment Litigation

The judgment reinforces certain recurring themes in recruitment jurisprudence:

Cut-off dates and eligibility rules matter:
- Eligibility is judged as on the prescribed cut-off date (here, the date of notification).
- Candidates who are ineligible as on that date cannot later be treated as eligible based on subsequent events.
Fairness to non-applicants:
- Candidates who refrain from applying because they are objectively ineligible must not be disadvantaged vis-à-vis those who apply despite ineligibility.
- This upholds the doctrine of equality under Article 14.

Going forward, courts are likely to scrutinise more carefully:

Attempts to relax or “read down” eligibility conditions after recruitment has begun.
Claims that later-acquired qualifications or regularisations should relate back to the cut-off date.

6. Complex Concepts Simplified

6.1 What is a “Grace Period” in Licence Law?

A grace period is a short span after the expiry of a licence during which the law still treats the licence as valid. Before 2019:

Section 14 allowed a 30-day grace period after expiry during which a person could still legally drive.

After the 2019 Amendment:

This grace period has been abolished. Now, the licence ceases to be effective on the date of expiry itself.

6.2 Difference Between “Renewal Window” and “Right to Drive”

It is crucial to distinguish:

Right/ability to apply for renewal (renewal window):
- Section 15 allows you to apply for renewal from one year before to one year after expiry.
Right to drive a vehicle:
- Section 3(1) and Section 14 require that you hold an effective licence to drive.
- After expiry (and with no grace period), you cannot lawfully drive unless renewed.

The Supreme Court makes clear: having the right to renew is not the same as having the right to drive during the expired period.

6.3 “Continuous” Licence: Legal vs. Factual Driving

“Continuous” possession of a licence for recruitment purposes is about:

Legal continuity – there must be no period during which:
- The licence had expired, or
- The licence was suspended or the driver was disqualified.

It is not enough to say:

“I was in fact driving throughout” if you were driving without a valid licence during some period.

For recruitment, the law demands formal legal entitlement, not just actual practice.

6.4 Harmonious Construction

When two provisions of a statute (here Sections 14 and 15) appear to pull in different directions, courts:

Read them together so that both have effect and are consistent with the Act’s purpose.
Avoid interpretations of one provision that would nullify or undermine the other.

In this case:

Section 14 says there is no post-expiry effectiveness.
Section 15 provides a renewal window and specifies the effective date of renewal.
Reading them harmoniously means:
- Section 15 cannot be used to recreate a grace period that Section 14 has removed.

6.5 Legislative Amendment and Change of Language

A basic interpretive rule is:

If the legislature changes the wording of a provision, especially by deleting important phrases, courts must assume this was intentional and must give that change real effect.

Here:

Parliament:
- Deleted the proviso granting a 30-day grace period.
- Expanded the renewal time frame from “30 days” to “one year before/after expiry”.
The Court therefore refused to treat the new “one year” as a disguised 30-day grace period extended to one year.

7. Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board v. Penjarla Vijay Kumar & Ors. is a clear and principled ruling that:

Gives full effect to the 2019 amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act.
Affirms that there is now no grace period after licence expiry.
Clarifies that the expanded renewal window is about administrative facilitation, not a licence to drive post-expiry.
Requires that recruitment conditions referring to “continuous” possession of a licence be interpreted as requiring uninterrupted legal validity.
Protects fairness and equality in recruitment by preventing ineligible candidates from gaining an advantage through litigation or interim orders.

Beyond the immediate recruitment in Telangana, the ruling will guide:

Government employers in drafting and enforcing eligibility conditions for driver posts,
Drivers in understanding the serious consequences of allowing their licences to lapse, and
Courts and tribunals in interpreting the post-2019 licence-renewal framework in insurance and accident cases.

In essence, the judgment sets a strong precedent: continuous means continuous. For statutory eligibility that hinges on continuous licence possession, any legal break – even for a day – matters, and post-facto renewal cannot erase that break.

No Deemed Continuity of Expired Driving Licences for Recruitment Eligibility after the 2019 Motor Vehicles Amendment – Commentary on Telangana SLPRB v. Penjarla Vijay Kumar