IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5038 of 2008 Between: S.K.K. Masthan Saheb, S/o. Shareef, Gangapatnam, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 APSRTC, Rep by its VC &MD, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Nellore Region, Nellore District. 3 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Vakadu Depot, Nellore District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or directions more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the letter NO. M1/468(4)/06-VKD, dated 05-10-2006 in issuing notice to the petitioner in discharging him from service without providing any alternative employment as illegal and arbitrary and set aside the same and further direct the respondents herein to provide any suitable alternative employment to the petitioner as per the Section 47 (1) of the persons with disabilities (EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES, PROTECTION OF RIGHTS AND FULL PARTICIPATION) ACT, 1995 by protecting all service benefits in the former post as per the above Act including arrears of salaries w.e.f medical unfit to till providing employment. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.GOVINDA RAJULU Counsel for the Respondents:C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner is employed, as a driver, by the APSRTC and presently, he is working in Vakadu Depot. He was sent for re-medical examination to the medical Board, on 19.09.2006. The Board declared him as unfit, since it was found that his distance vision in the right eye was defective. The third respondent issued a show cause notice, dated 05.10.2006, directing the petitioner to explain as to why he shall not be discharged from service on the grounds of medical unfitness. The petitioner challenges the same, stating that there are several circulars issued by the Corporation to the effect that a driver medically found unfit must be considered for alternative employment and he seeks remedies accordingly. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner does not challenge the findings recorded by the medical Board and is reconciled to the situation that he could no longer function as a driver. However, he contends that the Corporation has evolved various schemes for employment of drivers, who medically found unfit in other posts. In fact, Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal opportunities, protection of rights and full participation) Act 1 of 1995 (for short ‘the Act’), mandates that whenever an employee is medically found unfit for a particular post, the employer must consider his case for alternative employment in the same organization. Apart from that, there were clear circulars issued by the Corporation. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. The Writ Petition is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. The respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner for alternative employment in the Corporation, in accordance with law, viz.Section 47 of the Act and the circulars in vogue. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated: 11.03.2008 sj ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD}