Karnataka HC pulls up KPSC, transport authorities over false certificates on training in non-existing heavy vehicles with petrol engine

The Karnataka High Court directed the government to appoint candidates whose names appeared in the revised final selection list for motor vehicle inspectors. Their appointments had been delayed because officials questioned whether their certificates showed experience repairing petrol-engine heavy vehicles.

The court made clear that the Transport Commissioner cannot reject a selected candidate or refuse an appointment order merely because the candidate lacks experience with petrol-powered HGVs or HPVs. The court said such vehicles had not existed in India for decades.

The government must issue the orders within two months. The candidates must receive all consequential benefits, including seniority on par with people already appointed. The ruling followed petitions against the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal’s decision and concerned recruitment notifications issued in 2016 and a revised selection list published in 2023.

Heavy goods vehicles, or HGVs, are large vehicles designed to transport goods, such as heavy trucks. Heavy passenger vehicles, or HPVs, are large vehicles designed to carry passengers, such as buses. The article focuses on whether candidates had workshop experience with these categories.

Motor vehicle inspectors, or MVIs, are officials whose work involves inspecting motor vehicles and applying transport rules. In this recruitment dispute, candidates needed certificates describing practical workshop training or experience. The certificates became important because the posts were filled through a selection process begun after recruitment notifications in 2016.

The court’s ruling concerned the wording of certificates for petrol-powered HGVs and HPVs. It said such vehicles had not existed in India for decades and that the Central government had removed related provisions from the Motor Vehicles Act. The Transport Commissioner therefore could not reject selected candidates on that ground.

Candidates applying for motor vehicle inspector posts were required to show one year of training or experience in vehicle repair workshops. The dispute did not concern the length alone. It concerned how experience across different vehicle categories should be counted.

The Transport Department challenged the view that combined experience from several workshops or garages could satisfy the legal requirement. The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal held that aggregate experience dealing with all three vehicle types was sufficient. It said candidates did not need one separate year for every category.

The High Court upheld that finding and dismissed the department’s petitions. It separately rejected the use of petrol-engine HGV and HPV requirements as a reason to disqualify candidates. The recruitment notifications had been issued in 2016, while the revised final selection list was published in 2023.

The certificates claimed that candidates had completed training repairing heavy goods and heavy passenger vehicles fitted with petrol-powered engines. The High Court said this claim could not be accepted because petrol-engine vehicles in those heavy categories had not existed in India for several decades.

The court specifically criticised certificates issued by State transport corporations such as the KSRTC and BMTC. It described their statements about petrol-powered heavy vehicles as “a blatant lie.” The Bench also noted that the Central government had amended the Motor Vehicles Act by deleting provisions related to petrol-engine HGVs and HPVs.

The government itself admitted in court that such petrol-engine heavy vehicles did not exist in India. On that basis, the High Court said the KPSC and Transport Commissioner acted unreasonably by accepting those certificates and could not use the supposed experience to decide candidates’ appointments.

The article does not explain why the KPSC and Transport Commissioner accepted certificates from State transport corporations while rejecting certificates from private workshops. It only records that the authorities accepted certificates issued by bodies such as KSRTC and BMTC in favour of certain candidates.

The private workshops had clearly stated that the candidates had not trained on heavy vehicles fitted with petrol-powered engines. The court found fault with rejecting those certificates, because that statement matched the reality identified by the Bench: petrol-engine HGVs and HPVs had not existed in India for decades.

The High Court described the official action as a “travesty of justice.” It said the Transport Commissioner could not reject a selected candidate for lacking experience with petrol-powered HGVs or HPVs. The ruling therefore corrected the certificate standard used in the appointment dispute, without identifying any stated reason for the earlier distinction.

The High Court ordered the government to issue appointment orders to affected candidates in the revised selection list. These candidates had challenged the failure to appoint them even though their names appeared in the revised final selection list published in 2023.

The order includes more than appointment alone. The government must provide all consequential benefits arising from the appointments. The court specifically required seniority on par with candidates who had already been appointed.

The government has two months to comply. The ruling also prevents the Transport Commissioner from refusing appointment because a selected candidate lacks experience repairing petrol-powered HGVs or HPVs. The court said that requirement could not fairly be applied because such vehicles had not existed in India for decades. The decision followed petitions challenging the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal’s earlier order.

Public-sector technical jobs rely on accurate certificates because employers must verify that selected candidates possess the practical skills required for their duties. For motor vehicle inspectors, workshop training can show real experience with vehicle repair and different vehicle categories.

A certificate is useful only when its description matches reality. In this case, the High Court said certificates claiming training on petrol-engine HGVs and HPVs were false because such vehicles had not existed in India for decades. It also criticised officials for rejecting private certificates that accurately stated candidates had not received that impossible training.

Reliable records support fair recruitment and help prevent candidates from being advantaged or disadvantaged by inaccurate paperwork. The ruling shows the practical consequence of checking certificates against current law and actual vehicle technology. It also requires the government to appoint affected candidates with equal seniority and other consequential benefits.