HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4818 of 2001 ORAL ORDER : No representation on behalf of the petitioner. Perused the records. 2. Heard learned Standing Counsel for the respondents- A.P.State Road Transport Corporation (for brevity “the Corporation”). 3. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order, dated 08-01-2001, in proceedings No.E1/684(2)/ 98-RM:ADB, issued by the Personnel Officer, Office of the Regional Manager, Adilabad Region of the Corporation, rejecting the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Conductor on medical grounds and seeks a direction to appoint her as Conductor (Women) in terms of Medical Certificate, dated 11-06-1999, issued by the Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital, Hyderabad. 4. The petitioner attended for interview to the post of Conductor in Adilabad Region during the recruitment held in the year 1999 and she was provisionally selected to the post of Conductor, subject to medical fitness etc. However, in the medical examination, she was found medically unfit due to “Convergent Squint” vide Medical Certification M.C.No.80568, dated 23-04-1999. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation, dated 16-06-1999, requesting to conduct medical re-examination by enclosing a certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon, Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital, Hyderabad. Accordingly, the petitioner was once again subjected to medical examination taking into consideration the certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon, Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital, Hyderabad, and even after re-examination, it was found that she was not medically fit in view of the above said disability possessed by her. Thereafter, the petitioner made another representation requesting to refer her case to Medical Board. Through the impugned proceedings, dated 08-01-2001, the said request of the petitioner was negatived on the ground of lapse of time. Hence the present writ petition. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that inspite of her request, her case was not referred to the Medical Board and she was deprived of the appointment to the post of Conductor, though she is having a valid certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon, Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital, Hyderabad. 6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation it is categorically stated that the petitioner was selected provisionally subject to medical fitness and during medical examination, as she was not fit into the medical standards, she was not appointed as Conductor. It is also averred in the counter affidavit that her request was considered and she was re-examined after the first medical examination by taking into consideration the certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon, Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital, Hyderabad, wherein also she was found unfit. It is stated that her case was medically examined by the competent Medical Officers of the Corporation. 7. It is always open for the employer to prescribe the medical standards before making any appointment. The provisional selection of the petitioner to the post of Conductor was subject to medical fitness and the said provisional selection will not confer any right on the petitioner for appointment. However, during the medical examination, the petitioner was found medically unfit due to “Convergent Squint”. Though the petitioner relied on the certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon, Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital, Hyderabad, however, acceding to her request for re-examination, the petitioner was re-examined for the second time. Even in the re-examination also, the said defect was noticed and she was declared medically unfit. Though the petitioner made further representation to refer her case to the Medical Board, the same was rejected through the impugned order, dated 08-01-2001. 8. When the competent Medical Officers appointed by the Corporation have examined the case of the petitioner and found her to be unfit, there is no reason to disbelieve their opinion. In this case, not only once, but even on re-examination also, the petitioner was found unfit as per the medical standards notified by the Corporation. Therefore, no positive direction can be given to the Corporation for appointment of the petitioner to the post of Conductor. 9. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order, dated 08-01-2001, rejecting the case of the petitioner, so as to issue a direction by way of Mandamus for appointment of the petitioner to the post of Conductor. 10. For the foregoing, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 02-12-2008. Msr HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4818 of 2001 02-12-2008 Msr