AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In this writ petition, the petitioner, who is a displaced employee of a private bus bearing No. AEE 456 on account of nationalisation of bus routes, is seeking for employment as a conductor in APSRTC and it is not denied that there is such a scheme.
While the complaint of the petitioner that he was unduly not considered for that post on the ground of non-existing medical ground, the learned standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation, Mr. P. Gangarami Reddy, strenuously contends otherwise. Mr. Gangarami Reddy contends that the petitioner is only one eyed and as such he is unfit to discharge the functions of a conductor, which need good vision to look into papers including that of minute details on the ticket and also counting of cash. It is also his contention that with one eye the conductor will not be able to see who are all the passengers that are boarding and getting down the bus. In so far as the doctors employed by the APSRTC are concerned, they did certify that the petitioner''s vision is not that much fit to discharge the function of a conductor. The result was this writ petition.
In fact, the case is at the consideration stage, as there are eligibility criteria for considering a displaced employee under rehabilitation scheme in APSRTC. One of the criteria is the medical fitness and I am only concerned with this fitness and any adjudication in this writ petition revolves the said medical fitness. The petitioner contends that even though his left eye is completely blind, his vision in the right eye is perfectly normal and that with the said vision in the right eye, he can competently discharge the functions of a conductor. Then, I refereed the matter to the Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital, Hyderabad, which is a primary hospital concerning opthalmology and a committee of three ophthalmologists, who are in the cadre of Civil surgeons, have certified that while the left eye is deplorably blind, the right eye is perfectly normal and that the petitioner is fit to discharge the duties of a conductor.
Mr. Gangarami Reddy has placed before me the Circular No. 63, dated 7.8.1991 and vehemently contends that the medical certificate issued by the expert doctors of Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital do not confirm the standards of vision prescribed by the APSRTC Doctors. I reject his contention. The doctors employed on time scale by the APSRTC are not the final authorities with regard to the medical opinion. The medical opinion, particularly with regard to the specialisation in ophthalmology and Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital being a primary institution concerning that medical field, that to an opinion of three expert ophthalmologists in the cadre of Civil Surgeons, cannot be ruled out and in my considered view the said expert opinion, which is forwarded through a letter dated 15.4.1994 to this Court, supersedes the medical opinion of the doctors employed by APSRTC. However, it is not out of place to mention that while the doctors employed by APSRTC tend to concur with their employer, i.e. APSRTC no doubt can be cast on the opinion of an independent authority like Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital.
In the circumstances, I hold that the petitioner do not suffer from infirmity of vision and that he is entitled to discharge the functions of a conductor, as opined by the expert doctors mentioned above. The respondent shall now consider the case of the petitioner for employment by way of rehabilitation under the displaced employees quota to the post of conductor without reference to his vision and subject to the petitioner''s compliance of the other eligibility criteria. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.