WA/1784/2005 of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Vs A.Hanumanth Reddy, S/o.A.Ganga Reddy, on 31 December 2013

AND

Date: 31-12-2013

Between:

A.P.S.R.T.C.,Rep. by its Vice-Chairman & Managing Director,Mushirabad, Hyderabad and another. - - - Appellants.

And

A. Hanumanth Reddy. - - - Respondent.

This Court made the following :

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

AND

JUDGMENT:(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice G. Chandraiah)

This Writ Appeal is preferred against order of the learned singleJudge of this Court dated 09.06.2005, passed in Writ PetitionNo.23703 of 2003.

2. The respondent herein filed Writ Petition No.23703 of 2003seeking to declare the action of the appellants herein in declaring himunfit for the post of Traffic Supervisor (Trainee), solely on the ground ofcolour blindness, as illegal and arbitrary and with a consequentialdirection to appoint him as Traffic Supervisor (Trainee) withoutreference to colour vision test with all consequential benefits.

3. After hearing both sides, learned single Judge of this Court hasdisposed of the Writ Petition with a direction to the 1[st] appellant toconstitute a medical board by requesting the concerned authority,consisting of three professors in the Ophthalmology Department, sothat they can examine the respondent and give a report, basing onwhich the 1[st] appellant had to take final action in the matter, within aperiod of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of theorder.

4. Learned standing counsel for the appellants-Corporation wouldcontend that in pursuance of the notification issued by the appellants-Corporation, for filling up the post of Traffic Supervisor (Trainee), dated 30.06.2002, the respondent made an application, participated in thewritten examination conducted on 17.11.2002 and got selected to theapplied post. Thereafter, the respondent attended the interview and,after selection of the respondent as Traffic Supervisor (Trainee), hewas referred to the A.P.S.R.T.C. Hospital at Tarnaka for medicalexamination on 21.02.2003, wherein, it was found that there wasdeficiency in the eyes of the respondent i.e., colour blindness and,therefore, he was declared unfit to the applied post. On appeal, therespondent was again examined and found the same and on furtherpetition, the respondent was re-examined by the medical board on09.09.2003 and found unfit due to colour blindness.

5. Learned standing counsel for the appellants-Corporation wouldcontend that the appellants-Corporation prescribed certain medicalstandards to the post of Traffic Supervisor (Trainee) vide CircularNo.PD-17/1987, dated 11.02.1987. He also further contended that thecandidate selected to the post of Traffic Supervisor (Trainee) will beappointed on regular basis as Deputy Superintendent (Traffic) and inaddition to the duties assigned to the post of Deputy Superintendent(Traffic), which includes, if emergency arises, driving the vehicles,checking the vehicles and tickets etc., he has to perform his ownduties. If the Traffic Supervisor (Trainee) fails to distinguish differentcolours, particularly the traffic signals, the safety of the passengerswould be in peril. Hence, the medical board of the appellants-Corporation, keeping in mind the Circular No.PD-17/1987, dated11.02.1987 and also the instructions booklets supplied to thecandidates along with I.C.R. application form, examined therespondent at three different levels of the medical examination andfound him unfit for the post of Traffic Supervisor (Trainee) under A-3category due to colour blindness. Therefore, again constituting amedical board with three professors in the Ophthalmology departmentand examining the respondent would not serve any purpose and, finally, prayed to allow the Appeal setting-aside the order underchallenge.

finally, prayed to allow the Appeal setting-aside the order underchallenge.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent contends that thoughthe respondent was declared unfit on the ground of colour blindnessby the concerned authorities of the appellants-Corporation, on21.01.2003, he got examined in the Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital, whichis a premier eye institute and being run by the Government of AndhraPradesh, on 20.03.2003. The Assistant Surgeon in the Sarojini DeviHospital, who examined the respondent, opined that the colour visionof the eyes of the respondent was normal. Subsequently, he got testedi n Meenakshi Eye Hospital and Sarang Eye Clinic, where his colourvision was found to be normal. Subsequently, the respondentapproached this Court seeking to grant appropriate relief; this Court,considered and disposed of the Writ Petition with a direction to the 1[st]appellant to constitute a medical board by requesting the concernedauthority, consisting of three professors in the Ophthalmologydepartment, examine the respondent and give his report, basing onwhich the 1[st] appellant would take further action in the matter, withinthe stipulated period. Therefore, the impugned order does not call forinterference of this Court.

7. A perusal of the material available on record reveals that, inpursuance of the notification issued by the appellants-Corporation on30.06.2002, the respondent applied to the post of Traffic Supervisor(Trainee) and after selection in the written examination, attended theinterview and was subjected to medical examination on 17.11.2002,wherein he was found unfit solely on the ground of colour blindness.Subsequently, when the respondent underwent medical examinationi n Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital, on 20.03.2003, it was found that thecolour vision of the eyes of the respondent was normal. Again, whenhe got tested his eyes in Meenakshi Eye Hospital and Sarang Eye Clinic, the colour vision of the respondent was also found to be normal.Thereafter, on appeal by the respondent, he was again examined bythe medical board and found the same and on further petition, therespondent was re-examined on 09.09.2003 and was found unfit dueto colour blindness. Thereafter, the respondent approached this Courtseeking to declare the action of the appellants-Corporation indeclaring him unfit to the applied post solely on the ground of colourblindness, as illegal and arbitrary and to appoint him as TrafficSupervisor (Trainee) without reference to colour vision test with allconsequential benefits. The learned single Judge of this Court, due todiscrepancy in the medical opinions of the respondent with regard tocolour blindness, rightly disposed of the Writ Petition with a direction tothe 1[st] appellant to take final action, as stipulated above.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we donot find any merits in the appeal and, accordingly, the Writ Appeal isdismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

In consequence, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending inthis appeal, shall stand dismissed.

____________________________

G. CHANDRAIAH, J

____________________________

M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY,J

Date: 31-12-2013.Dsh

AND

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

DSH

NotNumbered

WRIT APPEAL No.1784 OF 2005

(Judgment of the Division Bench deliveredby Hon’ble Sri Justice G. Chandraiah)

Date.31.12.2013

18112014