M.Eswara Rao, Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport

M.ESWARA RAO,, S/O. BABU RAO, AGED 46 YEARS, OCE. DRIVER GR.II (E.601614), APSRTC RAJAHMUNDRY DEPOT, NOW RETIRED, R/O.17-26-262, PANDIR MAHADEVA COLONY, SEETHAMPET, RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT AND

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT, CORPORATION, R.T.C. HOUSE, VIJAYAWADA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶14

THE REGIONAL MANAGER, APSRTC, EAST GODAVARI REGION, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶15

THE DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC, RAJAHMUNDRY DEPOT, RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to to issue an appropriate order, writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus (a) declaring the Order No.P1/693(03)/17RJY, dated 26.12.2017 passed by respondent No.3 as illegal and arbitrary, and set aside the same (b) consequently direct respondents to conduct re-

¶18

2

¶19

VS,J W.P.No.7013 of 2018

¶20

examination of the petitioner through a Medical Board through Government Hospital at Vijayawada or any other competent specialized agency, obatain a report and take action as per law, to continue the petitioner in the service in the post of Driver in respondent Corporation or any other alternative suitable post as per law and as per the provisions of the Act, 47 of 2003, in the interest of justice and pass

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To suspend the the Order No. P1/693(03)/17-RJY, dated 26-12-2017 passed by respondent No. 3 pending disposal of the writ Petition, and pass.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.MANIKANTESWARA RAO KOTHA

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.K SRINIVASA PRASAD SC For APSRTC

¶27

The Court made the following:

3

VS,J

W.P.No.7013 of 2018

ORDER:

This Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following prayer:

¶33

“…to issue an appropriate order, writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus (a) declaring the Order No.P1/693(03)/17-RJY, dated 26.12.2017 passed by respondent No.3 as illegal and arbitrary, and set aside the same (b) consequently direct respondents to conduct re-examination of the petitioner through a Medical Board through Government Hospital at Vijayawada or any other competent specialized agency, obatain a report and take action as per law, to continue the petitioner in the service in the post of Driver in respondent Corporation or any other alternative suitable post as per law and as per the provisions of the Act, 47 of 2003, in the interest of justice and pass…”

¶34

The petitioner was appointed as driver in the respondent corporation in the year 2012 and ever since, he has been discharging his duties to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors.

¶35

While in service, in the month of August, 2017, he was sent for medical examination wherein, the Senior Medical Officer, APSRTC, Rajahmundry vide M.C.No.011053, dated 31.08.2017 declared the petitioner as unfit for A1 category i.e. for the post of driver. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted an application on 07.09.2017 with a request to refer him to the Board for medical examination; accordingly, the 3^rd

4

VS,J

W.P.No.7013 of 2018

respondent, vide letter dated 07.09.2017 referred the petitioner to Superintendent and Chief Medical Officer, APSRTC hospital, Vidyadharapuram, Vijayawada for medical examination; on examining the petitioner, the medical board found the petitioner fit for the post of driver in the category A1 and the same was communicated to the 3^rd respondent vide letter bearing No.SA/19(M.B-15)/17-VJA, dated 24.10.2017.

¶40

However, the respondent authorities, having not satisfied over the same, have again referred the petitioner to Senior Medical Officer, APSRTC dispensary, Rajamahendravaram, who, vide opinion No.011190, dated 01.12.2017 opined that the petitioner is unfit for the post of Driver under category A1. Subsequently, based on a representation 08.12.2017 submitted by the petitioner to the 3^rd respondent, he was again referred to the Superintendent and Chief Medical Officer, APSRTC hospital, Vidyadharapuram, Vijayawada for medical examination for assessment of his suitability to the post of Driver; the petitioner was again declared as unfit vide letter dated 12.12.2017 basing on which, the 3^rd respondent passed the impugned order bearing No.P1/693(03)/17-RJY, dated 26.12.2017 retiring the petitioner from service with effect from 12.12.2017 in terms of Regulation 6(A)(5)(b) of the APSRTC Employees’ (Service) Regulations, 1964. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

5

VS,J

W.P.No.7013 of 2018

The respondents have filed a counter affidavit admitting the

¶45

facts stated by the petitioner in all aspects and further contended that Chief Medical Officer, in his letter dated 12.12.2017 declared the petitioner unfit for the post of driver in category A1 and for all other alternate categories as per the Medical standards of APSRTC as he gets seizures. Hence requested to dismiss the writ petition.

¶46

Heard Sri. Manikanteswara Rao Kotha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. K. Srinivasa Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC.

¶47

Perused the entire material available on record. Though the writ petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the respondents in retiring the petitioner vide order dated 26.12.2017 passed by the 3^rd respondent as he is found medically unfit, during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court G.O.Ms.No.58, Transport, Roads and Buildings (PTD.I) department, dated 26.12.2025 as per which, if an employee is found medically unfit for the alternative posts offered in Andhra Pradesh Public Transport Department, they may be provided alternative posts in other Government departments by the District Collectors. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner sought a direction to the respondents to provide alternative employment to the petitioner in other Government Departments as per the said orders of the Government. On

¶48

6

¶49

VS,J W.P.No.7013 of 2018

¶50

such submission, learned Standing Counsel submitted that if at all the petitioner submits a representation to the concerned authorities requesting alternative employment, the same would be considered in accordance with law.

¶51

In view of the above submissions, instead of going into merits of the case, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the petitioner herein to submit a representation before the concerned authorities seeking alternative employment in other Government departments other than Andhra Pradesh Public Transport Department, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receiving such representation, the concerned authorities are directed to pass appropriate orders, keeping in view G.O.Ms.No.58, dated 26.12.2025, as expeditiously as possible.

¶52

Accordingly, with the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶53

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed.

¶54

_____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶55

13.07.2026 Gss

M.Eswara Rao, v. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Eswara Rao, v. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Axis Finance Ltd., Vs Sigilipelli Venkaiaramana

Dhulipalla Venkata Sundeep Vs Dhulipalla Talasila Yamini Satya

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd Vs Damarusingu Ramana

B. Balaji Singh, Vs The Regional Manager

Chandra Phani Shankar Alla Vs The H.S.B.C. Electronic Data Processing India Pvt. Ltd.

Dr. D. Nageswara Rao, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh