THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.36476 of 1998 DATED:06.02.2008 Between: V.Srinivas. …Petitioner And The Managing Director and another. ..Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.36476 of 1998 ORDER: The petitioner seeks a declaration that the action of the respondents in not appointing him as Conductor Grade-II, and not sending him for training, is illegal and arbitrary. He seeks a consequential direction to the respondents to appoint him as Conductor Grade-II and send him for training. Applications were invited by the respondent-Corporation in February, 1998 for appointment to the post of Conductor Grade-II. The petitioner applied pursuant thereto and was called upon, vide letter dated 01.09.1998, to attend the interview to be held on 14.09.1998. The petitioner claims to have attended the interview and to have succeeded therein. Recruitment order dated 29.09.1998 was issued informing the petitioner that he was provisionally selected for the post of Conductor Grade-II and that he should report on 14.10.1998 with certain documents for medical examination to determine his suitability. The petitioner was medically examined on 15.10.1998. While claiming ignorance as to what transpired in the medical examination, the petitioner contends that while 99 out of 100 candidates who were provisionally selected, were permitted to join duty and sent for training, he was not. He claims to have made enquiries and to have found out that he was not sent for training on the ground that he was not medically fit. The petitioner admits that he has a slight less vision in his right eye ever since his birth and that his vision in the right eye continuous to remain the same, that it has not affected him in completing his studies, that he is a graduate and he has completed the ITI Fitter Course and Type Writing course also and that he is fully fit to discharge the duties of Conductor Grade-II. Reference is made to the APSRTC Employees (Recruitment) Regulations (for short “the Regulations”) to contend that no medical test is prescribed therein for appointment to the post of Conductor except prescribing a minimum height of 153 cms and since the petitioner possessed the minimum required height, he was entitled to be appointed. The petitioner claims to have obtained a vision certificate from the Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital, Hyderabad, wherein his vision in the right eye was found as 6/60, in his left eye as 6/6, colour vision as normal and in the remarks column, he is said to have “Amblyopia”. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, reference is made to Regulation 7 of the Regulations, whereunder no person shall be eligible for appointment to any post in the service by direct recruitment unless he satisfies the Corporation that he possesses sound health, active habits and is free from any bodily defect or infirmity. Note 1 thereunder provides that the competent authority may by a general or special order specify the standards of physical fitness to be fulfilled by candidates and different standards may be prescribed for different categories of posts. It is stated that the Corporation prescribed certain minimum vision standards for all categories of posts at the time of initial appointment, and for the post of Conductor Grade-II, the distant vision with naked eye is prescribed as 6/18 and distant vision with corrected eye as 6/9, and similarly for near vision the standard prescribed is J-1 and the field of vision as Normal. It is stated that, since the petitioner did not fulfil these medical standards, he was found not suitable for appointment. Sri T.P.Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner, does not dispute the fact that the petitioner does not fulfil the aforesaid medical standards. It is his case that these medical standards were brought into force subsequent to the 1998 selection of candidates for appointment to the post of Conductors and that, when the petitioner’s candidature was rejected in the year 1998, no such Regulations or medical standards were in force. While it is true that the Medical Manual is of the year 1999, Smt. B.G.Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent- Corporation, has placed before this Court a copy of the circular dated 11.02.1987, wherein the minimum vision standards for candidates to become eligible for direct recruitment posts was revised. For Conductors in A2 category, the standard prescribed for distant vision with naked eye is 6/18, distant vision with corrected eye is 6/18 and near vision is 6/9. Admittedly, the petitioner does not fulfil even these medical standards. His self-serving averment in the affidavit, that he is fit to discharge the duties of Conductor, notwithstanding the fact remains that his failure to fulfil the prescribed medical standards would justify the respondent not appointing the petitioner as Conductor Grade-II. It is not for this Court to determine whether a particular medical standard should be prescribed for appointment to the post of Conductor or not, as these are all matters for the Corporation in its wisdom, to determine. Since the petitioner, admittedly, does not fulfil the stipulated medical standards, the relief sought for in the Writ Petition cannot be granted. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. __________ 06.02.2008 GJ