Telangana High Court
T. Venkateswarlu vs Chairman, T.S.P.G.C.L. Ano. on 22 March, 2024
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
*****
WRIT PETITi0N No.18719 of 2016
Between:
T.Venkateshwarlu.
... Petitioner
and
The T.S. Power Generation Corporation Limited, Rep. by its Chairman and
another.
... Respondents
nd
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 22 March, 2024
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to
see the Judgment? Yes/No
2 Whether the copies of judgment
may be marked to Law
Reporters/Journals Yes/No
3 Whether His Lordship wish to see
the fair copy of the Judgment?
Yes/No
__________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
2
Justice Juvvadi Sridevi
WP. No.18719 of 2016
* THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
WRIT PETITi0N No.18719 of 2016
% Date: 22nd March, 2024
Between:
T.Venkateshwarlu.
... Petitioner
and
The T.S. Power Generation Corporation Limited, Rep. by its Chairman and
another.
... Respondents
! Counsel for the petitioner : Sri N.Ramesh
^ Counsel for the Respondents : Ms. V.Uma Devi.
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
3
Justice Juvvadi Sridevi
WP. No.18719 of 2016
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
WRIT PETITION No. 18719 of 2016
ORDER:
Petitioner is seeking to declare the action of respondents in
disqualifying him for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer
(Mechanical) under Physically Handicapped (HH) Category, as arbitrary,
illegal and sought for consequential direction directing the respondents to
send him for re-medical examination in any prominent hospitals and to
consider his case for appointment to the above post.
2. Heard both sides and perused the record.
3. Respondents have issued notification dated 23.09.2015 for filling
up the vacancies of Assistant Engineer (Electrical/Mechanical/
Electronics/Civil). Petitioner has applied to the post of Assistant Engineer
(Mechanical) under Physically Handicapped (Hearing impaired)
Category. After written examination, he was called for certificate
verification. At that time, the petitioner did not produce the hearing
impaired certificate and sought for time, which was granted. Case of the
petitioner is that thereafter, the respondents have obtained his hearing
disability certificate issued by the Government ENT Hospital, Koti,
Hyderabad, certifying the disability as 13%. Basing on the said certificate,
Justice Juvvadi Sridevi
he was disqualified, as the disability is less than 40%. Grievance of the
petitioner is that such certificate was not shown to him and the
respondents, on their own got it from the Hospital and disqualified him on
the ground that he was having disability of only 13%. It is his case that
had the said certificate been shown to him, he would have preferred an
appeal to the appellate authority, as provided under Section 59 of the
Persons with Disabilities (equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and
Full Participation) Act, 1995.
4. It is the further case of petitioner that subsequently, he visited the
Government ENT Hospital, Koti, Hyderabad, on 06.04.2016 and on
10.05.2016 for medical examination to know the percentage of his
disability. The said Hospital issued certificate on 06.04.2016 to the effect
that he was having 35% of hearing disability and that in the medical
examination conducted on 10.05.2016, the hospital authorities have
certified that his hearing disability was moderate in respect of both the
ears. Thus, it is his case that there was vast difference in percentage of
disability from 13% to 35% within a period of 40 days i.e., during the
period from 24.02.2016 to 06.04.2016. Hence, he prays to refer him for
re-examination so that he can establish the correct disability.
Justice Juvvadi Sridevi
5. Respondents have filed counter affidavit admitting about the
petitioner's appearance in the examination and the subsequent certificate
verification. It is stated that at the time of certificate verification, the
petitioner has produced four certificates of hearing disability, but in none
of those four certificates, the percentage of disability was not stated.
Therefore, he was asked to produce the latest hearing disability certificate.
It is stated that in the certificate obtained from the Government ENT
Hospital, Koti, Hyderabad, the hearing disability of petitioner was
mentioned as 13%, therefore, he was disqualified. It is their case that in
the online application submitted by the petitioner, he has mentioned his
disability as more than 70% and basing on the same, he was allowed to
the examination but in view of the certificate issued by the ENT Hospital,
showing his disability as 13%, he was rightly disqualified and accordingly
prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. Since the facts of the matter are not in dispute, the only question to
be considered in this writ petition is the variation in the percentage of
hearing disability of the petitioner. In the certificate obtained by the
respondents from the ENT Government Hospital, Koti, Hyderabad, the
disability is shown as 13%, whereas, in the medical examination
conducted on 06.04.2016, the same hospital has shown the disability as
35%. In view of such variation and taking into consideration the
Justice Juvvadi Sridevi
contention of petitioner that the initial certificate issued by the ENT
Hospital showing his disability as 13% was not shown to him and thus
denying him the opportunity of approaching the appellate authority, this
Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case to give one more
opportunity to the petitioner to establish his hearing disability.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, petitioner is directed to make an
application before the 2nd respondent requesting to refer him to the State
appellate Medical Board within a period of one (01) week, whereupon, the
2nd respondent may refer the petitioner's application to the State appellate
Medical Board within a period of two (02) weeks to consider his case in
accordance with law. In the event of his satisfying the eligibility criteria of
disability, respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's case for
appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) if he is
otherwise eligible.
8. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order
as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Dated 22.03.2024
Note: Issue C.C. by tomorrow
LR copy be marked.
(b/o) lk
