Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Chairman,Bsnl,New Delhi,And 3 vs B.Sunitha,Krishna Dist on 6 January, 2025

           HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

      MAIN CASE:         W.P.No.3901 of 2013

                                 PROCEEDING SHEET

SL.                                                                            OFFICE
No. DATE                                      ORDER
                                                                               NOTE
14.    6.01.2025R RNT,J & CGR,J

                            The respondent/applicant was selected

for the post of Junior Telecom Officer (JTO),2001 in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), pursuant to the notification, dated 3.12.2000 issued by the 2nd petitioner herein. Thereafter, her appointment was denied on the medical ground that she had no vision in her right eye. The respondent/applicant filed W.P.No.6355 of 2005, which was remitted to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (in short 'Tribunal'), where it was numbered as T.A.No.16 of 2012. The Tribunal allowed the T.A., taking the view that, the applicant was not claiming any reservation under 3% quota of the physically handicapped, and under the notification for recruitment, there is no such condition that a person having no vision from one eye, cannot participate in the selection. Once the applicant was selected on the basis of her merit, she had be given appointment.

                                                                               (contd..)
                                     2


SL.                                                                         OFFICE
No. DATE                            ORDER
                                                                            NOTE
                  2.     Smt.           V.Santhisree,             learned

Standing Counsel for the petitioners submits that for the post of JTO, there is no reservation for visually handicapped under 3 % quota. She submits that the applicant is also not claiming any reservation, but considering the nature of the work of the post of JTO, the applicant is not fit for the said post.

3. Sri N.Appa Rao, learned counsel representing, Ms.A.V.S.Laxmi, learned counsel for the respondent/applicant, submits that the petitioner shall able to perform the functions and duties of the post of JTO, and no vision in one eye, does not create any hindrance for the discharge of the duties of the post, she has been selected.

4. At this stage, we asked the learned counsel for the petitioners, if the applicant is not fit, as per their contention for the post of JTO, on such medical reason, can she be considered for other post, equivalent to JTO. She prays for time to get instructions in that regard.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent/applicant shall also obtain instructions that in case some other post is offered to her, she is ready to accept.

3
SL.                                                           OFFICE
No. DATE                      ORDER
                                                              NOTE

6. The aforesaid is without prejudice to the rights of the parties and the submissions advanced on merits.

7. Post the matter on 08.01.2025.

______ RNT,J ______ CGR,J RPD 4 SL. OFFICE No. DATE ORDER NOTE 5 SL. OFFICE No. DATE ORDER NOTE