Recruitment Authorities Cannot Insist On Impossible Experience Criteria: Karnataka High Court Rules Against Rejection Of Motor Vehicle Inspector Candidates

"The law does not compel one to do that which one cannot possibly perform. Where the law creates a duty or charge, and the party is disabled to perform it, without any default in him, and has no remedy over it, there the law will in general excuse him." Karnataka High Court, in a significant ruling dated October 6, 2026, held that recruitment authorities cannot reject candidates for failing to meet experience criteria that are practically impossible to fulfill.

A bench of Justice R. Devdas and Justice Dr. K. Manmadha Rao observed that insisting on experience certificates for "Heavy Goods Vehicles and Heavy Passenger Vehicles with petrol engines"—a category that has not existed for decades—amounts to a "travesty of justice" and an unreasonable administrative exercise.

The matter arose from the recruitment of 150 Motor Vehicle Inspectors initiated via a 2016 notification. The dispute centered on the requirement of one year of experience in a workshop handling Light Motor Vehicles, Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV), and Heavy Passenger Vehicles (HPV) fitted with both petrol and diesel engines. Following previous litigation, the KPSC issued a revised select list, but numerous candidates faced rejection during subsequent verification by District Deputy Commissioners for failing to produce certificates specifically citing experience with "petrol-engine" heavy vehicles.

The primary legal issues were whether the "one-year experience" requirement must be satisfied individually for each vehicle category or in aggregate, and whether the state can reject candidates for failing to produce certificates for non-existent vehicle technology. The court was further tasked with determining the extent of the recruitment authority's discretion when statutory rules impose impossible conditions.

Court Rejects Literal Interpretation

The court held that the recruitment rules do not mandate that a candidate must possess one year of experience in each specific category of vehicle independently. Instead, it ruled that an aggregate experience of one year, drawn from one or more workshops handling the specified vehicle types, satisfies the statutory eligibility.

Applying the Doctrine of Lex Non Cogit Ad Impossibilia

The court underscored that authorities were "blindly accepting" certificates from state corporations that falsely claimed experience in petrol-run heavy vehicles while penalizing other candidates whose certificates truthfully omitted this non-existent category. Invoking the legal maxim lex non cogit ad impossibilia (the law does not compel the impossible), the bench ruled that when a statute prescribes a standard impossible to meet, the requirement cannot be used to disqualify meritorious candidates.

"The Commissioner, Transport Department, shall not be permitted to reject the candidature of any selected candidate or decline to issue appointment order on the ground that he/she does not have the experience in HGV or HPV petrol vehicles."

Revisiting Verification Reports

Regarding cases where candidates were rejected due to perceived lack of supporting documents during physical verification of workshops, the court adopted a remedial approach. It directed that in instances where the Deputy Commissioners' reports were found deficient or lacked clarity, a fresh verification process must be conducted to ascertain the true facts, rather than summarily dismissing the candidates.

Dismissing the State's challenge, the High Court allowed the petitions filed by the candidates, quashing the orders passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) that had upheld the rejections. The court mandated that the Commissioner of the Transport Department must issue appointment orders to all successful candidates found in the Revised Final Select List of 2023 within two months, ensuring their seniority is protected on par with those already appointed.

Date of Decision: 06 October 2026