IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1838 of 1999 Between: Shaik kahader Valli, S/o Mirvali r/o naramitla, Podili taluq, Prakasam Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional manager, A.P. State Road transport Corpt., Ongole, Prakasam Dist. 2 The Superintendent, Nizam Institute of Mandal Sciences, Hospital, panjagutta, Hyderabad. .....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 a writ or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondents in appointing the petitioner as Driver basing on the certiﬁcates dt.19.02.1997, as arbitrary, illegal and further direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as driver in the A.P.S.R.T.C on the basis of the certificates dt.19.02.1997 Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.RAVINDRANATH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.R.M.REDDY The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 1st respondent in denying appointment to the petitioner as a Driver in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) relying on the medical certiﬁcate, dated 19.2.1997, issued by the 2nd respondent, as illegal and arbitrary, and to direct the 1st respondent to appoint the petitioner as a driver in the Corporation. 2. In the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner was working as a Cleaner on the stage carriage bus bearing No.AAE 4307, being plied on the moﬀusil route from Ongole to Munagapadu, and he lost his job in the month of October, 1986, due to nationalization of the said route. It is also stated that thereafter, in 1996, his name was sponsored by the employment exchange for appointment to the post of Driver in the Corporation, and though he was selected by the duly constituted selection committee, he was denied appointment on medical grounds, stating that he was suﬀering from heart ailment and defective eye sight. It is stated in the aﬃdavit that thereafter, he got health check ups through cardiac specialist by name Dr.Soma Raju, who certiﬁed that he is medically ﬁt to do any type of job. It is further stated that the petitioner has also consulted an Opthomologist by name Dr.Govindappa, who has also issued certiﬁcate dated 19.2.1997 stating that he is ﬁt to discharge the functions of a driver. It is his case that in view of the said opinions given by Dr Soma Raju and Dr.Govindappa, he made a representation to the respondents, requesting them to consider his case and appoint him as a Driver. Then his case was referred to the Medical Board and he appeared before the said Board on 17.6.1997, but however, no further steps have been taken. 3. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that in the selections made in the year 1996, one Mr.S.K.Khadarvali, S/o Sri Mastan, was provisionally selected for the post of driver, but not the petitioner. It is further stated that even with regard to the said selected candidate, both the Medical Board and the appellate Medical Board have declared him unﬁt for the post of Driver, in view of his defective vision in both the eyes and also for the reason that he was suﬀering from high blood pressure. 4. Though it is the case of the petitioner that he was selected provisionally, in the counter aﬃdavit it is categorically stated that the petitioner was not at all selected for the post of Driver, but the name of the selected candidate was Mr.S.K.Khadarvali S/o Masthan. Sofaras the petitioner is concerned he described himself as Shaik Khader valli S/o Meeravalli. Further, it is to be noticed that even the said selected candidate was found unﬁt by the duly constituted Medical Board. Merely because a certiﬁcate was obtained from a private consultancy, it is not obligatory on the part of respondents, to appoint such candidate when both the Medical Board and the appellate Medical Board have found such candidate to be medically unﬁt. In that view of the matter, there is no reason to disbelieve the ﬁndings recorded by the doctors appointed in the Medical Board of the respondent-corporation. Therefore, I do not ﬁnd any inﬁrmity in the impugned order passed by the first respondent. 5. The writ petition is devoid of merit, and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 14th August, 2008 PNV ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LOBIS}