IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 3939 of 2008 Between: A.Umamaheswara Rao S/o. A.Govindappa, R/o. D.No. 12/ 644, Jesus Nagar, ANANTAPUR. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Vice Chairman & Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Anantapur Depot, Anantapur. 3 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Anantapur Region, Anantapur. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in directing to appoint the petitioner as conductor through proceedings No.P4/468(6)/2007-RM-"A", dated 16- 1-2008 in compliance Protection of Right and Full Participation ) Act, 1995 as illegal, arbitrary and in violative of Art.14 & 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in any other alternative suitable post except in the post conductor in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.D.GOWD Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 3939 of 2008 ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus to declare the action of the third respondent in directing to appoint the petitioner as Conductor through proceedings No.P4/468(6)/2007- RM-A, dated 16.1.2008 in compliance of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 ( for short ‘the Act’) as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It appears that the case of the petitioner was considered under Section 47 of the Act and he was accommodated as a Conductor. The very reason for declaring the petitioner medically unfit to hold the post of Driver is due to defective eye vision. According to the petitioner, he cannot perform the duties of a Conductor with defective eye vision and the respondents could have considered his case to any other alternative post. In view of the above, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for providing any other alternative post, except the post of Conductor and pass appropriate orders, as per law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. __________ 26-02-2008 rkk ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Vice Chairman & Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Anantapur Depot, Anantapur. 3 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Anantapur Region, Anantapur. 4. 2CD copies