IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 26920 of 1998 Between: K.Satti Babu, S/o. Appa Rao, R/o. Chitrada, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Manager, APSRTC., Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 2 The Managing Director, APSRTC., Musheerabad, Hyderabad. .....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 direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents is not appointing the petitioner as driver in pursuance of the proceedings E6/684(4)/97 RM, dt.20/10/1997 as illegal arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents No.1 to appoint the petitioner as driver and to pass such further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondents : MR.C.PRAKASH REDDY The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 26920 of 1998 ORDER : The petitioner, an unemployed person, who was denied appointment to the post of Driver on medical grounds, has approached this Court by filing this writ petition. 2. The petitioner has come up for selection pursuant to a selection process, vide Selection Committee proceedings dated 20th October 1997. However, the said selection was conditional and it was informed to the petitioner that his final selection would be subject to the outcome of medical fitness examination. Initially, he was examined by a Doctor, who has certified through M.C.No.006315, dated 06.11.1997 that the petitioner was suffering from Diabetes. Thereafter, the petitioner has made a representation for his re- examination and he was re-examined on 02.01.1998 by two Medical Officers as per the standards prescribed. They too have certified that the petitioner was suffering from Diabetes Mellitis. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was examined by private doctors and his blood sugar limits were within the normal range. On the said ground, he has approached this Court stating that denial of appointment pursuant to his selection as a Driver, is illegal. 4. Counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit are filed on behalf of the respondents. 5. While accepting that the petitioner was selected by the Selection Committee, it is stated that he was denied appointment as he was not medically fit. Reference is made to the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Recruitment) Regulations, 1966 with particular reference to Regulation No.7, which postulates that no person shall be eligible for appointment to any post in the service by direct recruitment unless he/she is of sound health and possesses active habits and is free from any bodily effect or infirmity. It is further submitted that asmuch as the petitioner was examined twice and was found unfit, he was not appointed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while submitting that he was not diabetic, has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Sulochana v. APSRTC. But with regard to the facts of the present case, this judgment would not render any assistance to the petitioner, as in the said case, at the stage of appointment, the petitioner in the said writ petition was not suffering with any ailment. 8. Although it is the case of the petitioner that his blood sugar levels were in normal range, but there is no reason to disbelieve the certification made by the Medical Officers of the Corporation. Even in the initial certification, he was found unfit and was certified to be Diabetic. Even thereafter, responding to the representation filed by the petitioner, he was re-examined on 02.01.1998 by two Medical Officers and they too have certified that the petitioner was suffering from Diabetes Mellitis, and there is no reason to disbelieve the certification made by the Doctors of the Corporation. 9. It is well settled that the employer, with an objective to secure continuous and effective services, while making appointments, can impose any conditions of medical fitness at the stage of recruitment process. When it is the case of the respondents that the petitioner was not appointed as he was suffering from Diabetes, it cannot be said that the petitioner was denied appointment illegally, more particularly, when a person is to be recruited as a Driver, Diabetes can be a factor to be taken into consideration because, in Diabetic patients, there is every possibility of developing Hypoglycemia attack at any time. In that view of the matter, keeping the interests of the passengers who travel in the buses of the Corporation in mind, denying such appointment cannot be said to be illegal. 10. In the aforesaid circumstances, I do not find any valid ground for granting the relief sought for in the writ petition. 11. Writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 11th August 2008 ajr To 1 The Regional Manager, APSRTC., Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 2 The Managing Director, APSRTC., Musheerabad, Hyderabad.