Karnataka High Court
The Managing Director vs Ganapathy M Naika on 17 February, 2023
Bench: Alok Aradhe, Vijaykumar A Patil
-1-
WA No. 1263 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO.1263 OF 2021 (S-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
SHANTHINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 027.
2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
KSRTC
CHIKMAGALUR DIVISION
CHIKMAGALUR
APPELLANT NOS.1 AND 2 ARE
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER
Digitally signed
by MADHURI S CENTRAL OFFICE, KSRTC, K H ROAD
Location: High SHANTHINAGAR
Court of BENGALURU - 560 027.
Karnataka
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. RENUKA H R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GANAPATHY M NAIKA
S/O MAILYA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
OFFICE ASSISTANT, BOOKING COUNTER
KSRTC BUS STAND
CHIKAMAGALUR - 577 101.
-2-
WA No. 1263 of 2021
2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR THE PERSONS
WITH DISABILITIES
(EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES PROTECTION OF
RIGHTS AND FULL PARTICIPATION ACT 1995)
NO.55 II FLOOR, KARNATAKA SLUM DEVELOPMENT
BOARD BUILDING
RESALDAR ROAD (PLATFORM ROAD)
SESHADRIPURAM
BENGALURU - 560 020.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.JAYNA KOTHARI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. ROHAN KOTHARI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS
APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE DATED 16.07.2021 PASSED IN W.P.
No.44037/2016, CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Smt. Renuka H.R., learned counsel for the
appellants.
Smt. Jayna Kothari, learned Senior Counsel for
Sri.Rohan Kothari, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
This intra Court appeal has been filed against the
order dated 16.07.2021 passed by the learned Single
Judge by which the writ petition preferred by the
WA No. 1263 of 2021
appellants has been disposed of. In order to appreciate the
grievance of the appellants, relevant facts need mention
which are stated infra.
2. Respondent No.1 was employed as driver cum
conductor in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation' for short).
Respondent No.1 met with an accident on 07.07.2007.
Thereafter, for a period from 08.07.2007 till 02.03.2011,
respondent No.1 was treated in respect of the injuries
suffered by him in the accident and the said period was
treated as 'On duty'. Respondent No.1 thereafter joined
the duties on 05.02.2011 and he was given the alternative
post of office helper.
3. Thereafter, respondent No.1 was restored to his
original post on 14.12.2015 and was provided with an
alternative job of helper. However, the claim of respondent
No.1 to the post of junior assistant for promotion was not
considered. Therefore, respondent No.1 approached
respondent No.2, namely, the Commissioner for the
WA No. 1263 of 2021
persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunity, Protection of
Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. The Commissioner
issued directions on 14.12.2015, which was modified on
26.02.2016 and it was directed that respondent No.1 be
granted promotion to the post of Assistant.
4. The aforesaid order was challenged by the
appellant in a writ petition inter alia on the ground that the
post of the Assistant is different and respondent therefore
is not entitled to promotion. The said writ petition was
disposed of by learned Single Judge with a direction to
redress the grievance of respondent No.1. In the aforesaid
factual background, this appeal has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that the cadre of the post of Assistant is different and
therefore, respondent No.1 could not have been promoted
to the said post. On the other hand, learned counsel for
respondent No.1 has supported the order passed by the
learned Single Judge and has submitted that on account of
disability of a person, he/she cannot be deprived of his
WA No. 1263 of 2021
right to claim promotion. In support of the aforesaid
submission, reliance has been placed on decisions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in KUNAL SINGH VS. UNION OF
INDIA AND ANOTHER1 and STATE OF KERALA AND
OTHERS VS. LEESAMMA JOSEPH2.
6. We have considered the submissions made on
both sides and have perused the record. From the perusal
of the order, it is evident that the learned counsel for the
appellant was unable to demonstrate before the learned
Single Judge as to how the corroboration is defective. The
only ground which was represented before the learned
Single Judge in support of the contention that respondent
No.1 is not entitled to the claim of promotion was that
respondent No.1 has not furnished his medical certificate.
However, medical certificates in support of disability of
respondent No.1 is on record. Respondent No.1 has been
directed to be provided to the promotion of Junior
Assistant as per his Seniority. Even otherwise, a person
(2003) 4 SCC 524
(2021) 9 SCC 208
WA No. 1263 of 2021
cannot be deprived of his right to claim promotion merely
on account of disability sustained by him.
For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any
merit in the petition, the same fails and is hereby
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
MDS
