Madras High Court
) The Tamil Nadu State Transport vs P.Karuppaiah on 24 May, 2017
Author: K.Ravichandrabaabu
Bench: K.Ravichandrabaabu
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON 16.07.2019
DELIVERED ON 26.07.2019
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
W.A.(MD)No.1469 of 2017 & C.M.P.(MD)No.11563 of 2017
and
W.A.(MD) No.266 of 2018
W.A.(MD)No.1469 of 2017:
1) The Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation(Kumbakonam) Limited,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Kumbakonam. ... Appellant No.1/
Respondent No.1
2) The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation(Kumbakonam) Limited,
Pudukkottai Region,
Pudukkottai. ... Appellant No.2/
Respondent No.2
Vs.
P.Karuppaiah ... Respondent/ Writ Petitioner
in W.P.(MD) No.17268/2016
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
W.A.(MD) No.266 of 2018:
P.Karuppaiah ... Appellant / Writ Petitioner
in W.P.(MD) No.17268/2016
Vs.
1) The Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation(Kumbakonam) Limited,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Kumbakonam.
2) The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation(Kumbakonam) Limited,
Pudukkottai Region,
Pudukkottai. ... Respondents/ Respondents
COMMON PRAYER: Writ Appeals are filed under Clause 15 of Letters
Patent Act against the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD) No.17268
of 2017 dated 24.05.2017.
In both Writ Appeals:
For Petitioners in : Mr.D.Sivaraman
W.A.(MD) No.1469 of
2017 / Respondents in
W.A.(MD) No.266/2018
For Respondent in : Mr.S.Chandrasekar
W.A.(MD) No.1469 of For Mr.A.Rahul
2017 / Petitioner in
W.A.(MD) No.266/2018
******
http://www.judis.nic.in
3
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J.)
1. Common issues arise for consideration in both these Writ Appeals and, therefore, they are disposed of by a common judgment.
2. The Appellants in W.A.(MD) No.1469 of 2017 are the Respondents in the Writ Petition. The Appellant in W.A.(MD) No.266 of 2018 is the Petitioner in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition was filed for a declaration that the action of the Respondents therein/Appellants herein in denying employment to the Petitioner to the post of driver is illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to reinstate him in service in the post of driver with continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits. The said Writ Petition was allowed by order dated 24.05.2017 whereby the Court directed the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner in the post of driver but without continuity of service and back wages. The said order is impugned by the Appellants in W.A.(MD) No.1469 of 2017 on the basis that the court erred in directing reinstatement whereas, the same order is impugned by the Appellant in W.A.(MD) No.266 of 2018 on the basis that the Court erred in directing reinstatement without continuity of service and back wages. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as the Transport Corporation and the Writ Petitioner.
http://www.judis.nic.in 4
3. The facts that are relevant for the purposes of deciding these Writ Appeals are set out briefly herein. The Transport Corporation issued a recruitment notification dated 02.11.2014 for direct recruitment to the post of driver. The said recruitment notification specifically mentioned that candidates should not have defective vision or defective hearing or night blindness or colour blindness or bow legs or deformed legs or flat feet. With regard to vision related requirements, it was specified that candidates should possess good distant vision without use of spectacles. In order to satisfy the vision related requirements, the candidate was required to submit a certificate from a hospital that is recognised by the transport corporation or from a civil assistant surgeon in a government hospital. In response thereto, it appears that various candidates, including the Writ Petitioner, applied for the post and a call letter dated 8.12.2014 was issued to interview candidates for direct recruitment to the post of driver. The said call letter specified the requisite qualifications which, inter alia, are a minimum height of 160 cms, a minimum weight of 48 kgs and a minimum age of 24 years with age relaxation for certain communities. In addition, the applicant was required to possess a heavy transport vehicle driving licence that should have been obtained at least 18 months earlier with an endorsement in respect of heavy passenger transport vehicles. Significantly, one of the requirements was that the applicant should have obtained a certificate with regard to http://www.judis.nic.in 5 eyesight/vision from a government eye hospital, which is recognised by the Transport Corporation or from a civil surgeon working in a government hospital.
4. The Writ Petitioner submitted an application and appears to have enclosed therewith an Eye Fitness Certificate dated 22.12.2014 issued by the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Headquarters Hospital, Pudukottai. Based on the application and the performance of the Writ Petitioner at the interview, by communication dated 25.03.2015, he was called upon to appear in person and produce relevant documents that were enumerated in the said communication so as to be selected for appointment on a temporary and provisional basis as a driver. These documents included an eye fitness certificate. Pursuant thereto, the Writ Petitioner was examined at the Aravind Eye Hospital. On that basis, the said Hospital issued a Certificate dated 30.05.2015 wherein it was stated that the Writ Petitioner requires glasses for distant vision and is, therefore, not fit as per the new regulations.
5. Based on the aforesaid Certificate dated 30.5.2015 from the Aravind Eye Hospital, the Writ Petitioner was not given employment. Consequently, by representation dated 1.8.2015, the Writ Petitioner requested that he should be given employment and followed it up with http://www.judis.nic.in 6 another representation dated 21.12.2015 under the RTI Act so as to ascertain the reason for not providing employment to him. At this juncture, he also obtained a Certificate dated 24.12.2015 purportedly issued by the Aravind Eye Hospital stating that he is fit to drive with glasses. On receipt of the said Certificate dated 24.12.2015, the Transport Corporation forwarded the Certificates dated 30.05.2015 and 24.12.2015 to the Aravind Eye Hospital and called upon them to confirm whether the latter certificate dated 24.12.2015 is genuine.
6. In these facts and circumstances, the Writ Petition was filed and, by an interim order dated 16.09.2016, the Writ Court directed the Writ Petitioner to appear before the Government Ophthalmic Hospital, Egmore for an eye examination. Pursuant thereto, a Report dated 30.09.2016 was issued by the Medical Board of the Government Ophthalmic Hospital stating that the Writ Petitioner is fit to drive with glasses. The said Report records that the distant vision of the Writ Petitioner requires correction by the use of spectacles both in respect of the right eye and left eye. Thereafter, final arguments were heard and the Writ Petition was allowed by order dated 24.05.2017, which is impugned both by the Transport Corporation and the Writ Petitioner herein.
7. At the hearing, Mr.D.Sivaraman, the learned counsel for the Transport http://www.judis.nic.in Corporation, first referred to the Common Service Rules (the 7 Service Rules) and pointed out as to how it categorically specifies as follows with regard to eyesight:
"must have clear eyesight and must be free from any physical deformity.
Note 1: a candidate shall be free from the following defects:
(a) defective vision
(b) defective hearing
(c)Night blindness and colour blindness
(d) bow legs, knock knees of flatfoot Note 2: a selected candidate must produce at the time of his appointment a certificate from an eye specialist certifying to the effect that he has:
(a) distant vision without glasses
(b) near vision 0.5 S. N.
(c) normal Colour vision and
(d) full field of vision"
He, thereafter, pointed out as to how it is categorically mentioned in the communication dated 25.3.2015 that the Writ Petitioner was required to produce educational, physical fitness, including eyesight fitness, certificates in connection with his candidature for selection and appointment on temporary basis. In this context, he referred to the Certificate dated 30.05.2015 from the Aravind Eye Hospital at page 39 of the typed set of papers and pointed out that it is stated categorically therein that he is not fit as per new regulations for driving heavy vehicles. He also referred to the subsequent Certificate dated 24.12.2015 and stated that the said certificate was obtained by the Writ Petitioner later and that its genuineness is disputed. With regard to the same issue, he also referred to the eye examination that was carried out by the Government Ophthalmic Hospital, Egmore, Chennai, on the http://www.judis.nic.in 8 basis of the interim order of the Writ Court and contended that, even as per the said certificate, the Writ Petitioner was fit to drive with glasses but not without glasses.
8. Mr.D.Sivaraman, thereafter, referred to the impugned order of the Writ Court and pointed out that the said order is patently erroneous in as much as the Writ Court concluded that a curable defect can never be said to be a disqualification. In other words, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the Transport Corporation that the Writ Court ought not to have adjudicated upon the rationale of the vision related qualification requirements that were specified by the Transport Corporation and that it is entirely up to the Transport Corporation to specify the requirements for a job. As regards the applicability of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (the Disabilities Act 1995), the learned counsel submitted that each establishment is required to identify posts in respect of which reservation for the disabled would be applicable. As regards the Transport Corporation, he pointed out that the posts of driver and conductor are not reserved for the disabled and that instead reservation is applicable to posts such as announcers, telephone operators, public relation officers, painters, welders, turners, junior assistants, typists and motor mechanics. In support of the submission, he referred to a communication dated 23.1.2012 from the Principal http://www.judis.nic.in 9 Secretary to Government, Transport Department to the Secretary to Government, Welfare of the Differently-Abled Persons Department, wherein it is stated that the Social Welfare Department had issued instructions to the state transport corporations to recruit differently-abled persons to other posts, as enumerated above, in order to compensate for not recruiting such differently-abled persons as drivers or conductors in the state transport corporations. Based on the aforesaid, Mr.D.Sivaraman submitted that the requirements of the Disabilities Act 1995 are fully satisfied by the Transport Corporation.
9. The learned counsel also emphasised that the recruitment notification, which sets out the prerequisites for employment, cannot be deviated from. He further submitted that the recruitment notification imposes the same qualification requirements as the Service Rules. In order to substantiate the submission that the conditions in the recruitment notification should not be deviated from, he referred to and relied upon the following judgments:
(i) Bedanga Talukdar vs. Saifudullah Khan AIR 2012 SC 1803 wherein, at paragraph nos. 28 and 29, it was held by the Supreme Court, inter alia, as follows:
".... In other words, they must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate. Therefore, the selection process has to be http://www.judis.nic.in 10 conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. Consequently when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such power is specifically reserved. Such power could be reserved in the relevant statutory rules. Even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement. In the absence of such power in the rules it could still be provided in the advertisement. However, the power of relaxation, if exercised has to be given due publicity. This would be necessary to ensure that those candidates who become eligible due to the relaxation, are afforded an equal opportunity to apply and compete. Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication would be contrary to the mandate of equality contained in articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India."
(ii) Dr.M. Vennila vs. the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission 2006 (3) CTC 449(DB)(Mad.) wherein, at paragraphs 24 and 25, the Division Bench held that the terms and conditions, instructions to candidates and information brochure have the force of law and should be strictly complied with. In this regard, it was held, in relevant part, in paragraph no.25 as follows:
"In the earlier part for order, we have extracted relevant provision,viz., instructions, et cetera to candidates as well as the information brochure of the http://www.judis.nic.in 11 Tamil Nadu Public service commission, we hold that the terms and conditions of instructions, et cetera to candidates and information brochure have the force of law and have to be strictly complied with. We are also of the view that no modification/relaxation can be made by the court in exercise of powers under article 226 of the Constitution of India and application filed in violation of the instructions, et cetera to candidates and the terms of the information brochure is liable to be rejected...."
(iii) State of U.P. Versus Rajkumar Sharma (2006) 3 SCC 330 wherein, at paragraphs 15 and 16, it was held that even appointments made by mistake do not confer any right on another person.
(iv) Chairman Teachers Recruitment Board vs. P.V. Brilla Betsy (2010) 2MLJ 311 wherein, at paragraphs 8 and 9, this Court held that the School Education Board as well as the candidates are bound by the terms and conditions of the prospectus and that any deviation there from is wholly without jurisdiction.
10. The learned counsel concluded his submissions by stating that, in this case, the recruitment rules were not challenged and that, therefore, the Writ Court erred patently in concluding that the condition that the Writ Petitioner should have good distant vision without the use of spectacles is invalid. He further submitted that the reservation of http://www.judis.nic.in 12 posts under the Disabilities Act 1995 would not apply to applicants for the post of driver and that there is no repugnance between the applicable service rules and the standing orders and that the standing orders do not apply to persons such as the Writ Petitioner, who are not in the employment of the Transport Corporation.
11. In reply, the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner, Mr.Chandrasekar, referred to the call letter dated 8.12.2014 and pointed out that the Writ Petitioner obtained a Certificate from the Government Hospital as per the requirement of the said call letter. He further pointed out that the said Certificate records that the Writ Petitioner has proper distant vision. His next submission was that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Motor Vehicles Act) authorises a person holding a valid heavy vehicle licence to drive such vehicles throughout India and that further conditions cannot be added by the Transport Corporation. With regard to the requirement of distant vision without the use of spectacles, the learned counsel submitted that the said requirement is incompatible with the Disabilities Act 1995 and the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (the Disabilities Act 2016). He referred to Sections 33 and 34 of the Disabilities Act 1995 and Section 33 of the Disabilities Act 2016 and contended that the Transport Corporation is bound to reserve 3% of posts for the disabled unless it obtains an exemption in accordance with the Disabilities Act. In this case, he stated that no such exemption was http://www.judis.nic.in 13 obtained and that, therefore, the condition with regard to distant vision is invalid. As an alternative submission, he contended that the Writ Petitioner had stated in the rejoinder affidavit that he does not suffer from defective vision and that it was certified by the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Headquarters Hospital, Pudukottai, on 22.12.2014 that the Writ Petitioner is fit to be a driver. He also pointed out that it was stated in the said rejoinder that persons with defective vision are allowed to continue in service as drivers if such defective vision could be corrected by the use of spectacles and that, therefore, the Writ Petitioner was being discriminated against.
12. In order to substantiate his submissions, the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner referred to and relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Kunal Singh vs. Union of India AIR 2003 SC 1623. In particular, he relied upon paragraphs 11 and 12 of the said judgment wherein the Supreme Court held that the impugned order terminating the services of the disabled person was in violation of Section 47 of the Disabilities Act 1995 which deals with disabilities that are acquired while in service. In this regard, he also relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation vs. K. Mohammed Mustafa 2007 WLR 256 wherein, at paragraph 6, it was held that the benefits under Section 47 of the Disabilities Act 1995 are in addition to those conferred by http://www.judis.nic.in 14 G.O.Ms.No.746. The learned counsel concluded his submissions by referring to Sections 13 and 16 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which deal with revocation of licence, and contended that unless the Writ Petitioner's licence to drive a heavy passenger transport vehicle is revoked under the Motor Vehicles Act, it cannot be said that he is not fit to drive such vehicles. Consequently, he submitted that the Writ Petitioner was erroneously denied employment on the basis of being unfit to drive such vehicles. For all the above reasons, he submitted that the order of the Writ Court should be sustained both on law and equity so as to enable and not disable a disabled person with the requisite qualifications to get the job.
13. By way of rejoinder, the learned counsel for the Transport Corporation pointed out that the Eye Fitness Certificate dated 22.12.2014 was obtained by the Writ Petitioner and not on a reference from the Transport Corporation. He further submitted that the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner was inconsistent and contradictory by contending, on the one hand, that the Writ Petitioner's vision is not defective and, on the other, that the Writ Petitioner is entitled to protection and reservation under the Disabilities Act. He concluded his submissions by reiterating that the Transport Corporation had complied with the requirements of the Disabilities Act 1995 by identifying posts wherein there is reservation for the disabled. He also reiterated that http://www.judis.nic.in 15 there is no challenge to the qualifications in this case and that, therefore, the qualifications could not be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution.
14. The pleadings, documents and oral submissions were considered carefully. On perusal of the recruitment notification and the Service Rules of the Transport Corporation, it is abundantly clear that an applicant for appointment as a driver should not have defective vision. It is further clear that the lack of defective vision has been explained or clarified as good distant vision without the use of spectacles. As regards the Writ Petitioner, the documents on record do not disclose that he applied as a person with defective vision for a reserved post under the Disabilities Act 1995. Indeed, the production of and reliance on eye fitness certificates by the Writ Petitioner indicate that the Writ Petitioner applied as a regular candidate, who is required to establish that he does not have defective vision. Nevertheless, the law on disabilities may be examined to first ascertain whether the Writ Petitioner is entitled to benefits under the relevant enactments and, thereafter, to see whether it mandates reservation in all posts and whether it prohibits conditions such as those specified in this case. In this connection, it is seen that the Disabilities Act 2016 came into force on 19.04.2017 and, therefore, may not apply to this case. The Disabilities Act 1995 defines “a person with disability” in Section 2(t) as “a person suffering from not less than http://www.judis.nic.in 16 40% of any disability as certified by a medical authority”. Likewise, Section 2 (u), inter alia, defines a “person with low vision” as “a person with impairment of visual functioning even after treatment or standard refractive correction....” The Writ Petitioner is a person whose distant vision is capable of correction through the use of spectacles, as per the eye fitness certificates on record, and, therefore, would not qualify as “a person with low vision” for the purposes of the Disabilities Act 1995. In this regard, the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner relied upon Sections 32 and 33 of the Disabilities Act 1995, which stipulate as follows:
"S.32. Identification of posts which can be reserved for persons with disabilities.- Appropriate Governments shall-
(a) identify posts, in the establishments, which can be reserved for the persons with disability;
(b) at periodical intervals not exceeding three years, review the list of posts identified and up-date the list taking into consideration the developments in technology.
33. Reservation of posts.- Every appropriate Government shall appoint in every establishment such percentage of vacvvacancies not less than three per cent. for persons or class of persons with disability of which one per cent each shall shall be reserved for persons suffering from-
(i) blindness or low vision;
(ii) hearing impairment;
(iii) locomotor disability or cerebral palsy Provided that the appropriate Government may, http://www.judis.nic.in 17 having regard to the type of work carried on in any department of establishment, by notification subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section."
On a plain reading, S.32 imposes an obligation on appropriate governments to identify posts for reservation and S.33 imposes a further obligation on appropriate governments to appoint persons with disabilities in the specified percentage of vacancies. As regards reservation for the visually impaired, the reservation is for persons with blindness or low vision. The Writ Petitioner does not qualify either as a person suffering from blindness or low vision. In addition, the Writ Petitioner does not appear to be “a person with disability” as defined in the Disabilities Act 1995. In this connection, a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V. Surendra Mohan vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2019) 4 SCC 237 is relevant, wherein the Supreme Court held, in paragraphs 23 and 24, that only a person who meets the requirements of Section 2(t) and (u) would be entitled to the benefits of the Disabilities Act 1995 under the visual impairment quota. With reference to the appointment of civil judges, the Supreme Court also upheld a condition, in that case, whereby a ceiling of 40-50% was fixed with regard to percentage of disability. For the reasons set out above, the Writ Petitioner is not entitled to benefits under the Disabilities Act 1995.
http://www.judis.nic.in 18
15. In addition, when Sections 33 and 34 are read together, it is clear that the reservation under Section 33 applies to identified posts and not to all posts. Besides, the expression "establishment" is defined in S.2 (k), in substance, as meaning statutory corporations, government departments and Government Companies and the reservation in S.33 would apply to all "establishments" unless exempted by notification as per the proviso to S.33. In effect, the Transport Corporation is an establishment for the purposes of the Disabilities Act 1995.
16. Although the Writ Petitioner is not entitled to benefits under the Disabilities Act 1995, the question as to whether the post of driver is an identified post under S.32 as regards the "establishment" in question, namely, the Transport Corporation may be examined in view of the fact that both parties addressed arguments on this issue. In this regard, the learned counsel for the Transport Corporation referred to the communication dated 23.11.2012 from the Principal Secretary to Government which discloses that the post of driver and conductor are not reserved for the differently-abled and that the 3% reservation would be filled-up through other identified posts in the Transport Corporations. Thus, it cannot be said that the Transport Corporation is in violation of S.32 or 33 of the Disabilities Act by not reserving the post of driver for the disabled, in general, or, in particular, for the visually http://www.judis.nic.in 19 impaired. The only other provision of relevance is S.47, which pertains to persons who acquire a disability after being employed, and, even in that context, enables the establishment to transfer such persons to another post, if unsuited to the current post, with equal pay scale and service benefits. Therefore, there is no violation of S.47 also. In sum, the Disabilities Act 1995 does not invalidate the condition that was imposed by the Transport Corporation with regard to distant vision and would not, consequently, have a material bearing on this case. Hence, it remains to be seen whether the Writ Petitioner fulfilled the vision related requirements of the recruitment notification.
17. On perusal of the eye fitness certificates on record, it is clear that the Certificate dated 30.05.2015 states categorically that the Writ Petitioner is not fit to drive heavy vehicles as per the new regulations because his distant vision requires correction by the use of spectacles. As regards the requirement of correction of distant vision by the use of spectacles, the said Certificate is corroborated by the Report dated 30.09.2016 from the Medical Board of the Government Opthalmic Hospital, Egmore, Chennai. Therefore, the Writ Petitioner does not fulfil the "distant vision without glasses" requirement and the only issue that needs to be considered is whether the said condition is valid and binding on the Writ Petitioner. On examining the relief requested in the Writ Petition, it is evident that the Writ Petitioner has not challenged the http://www.judis.nic.in 20 recruitment notification or the Service Rules of the Transport Corporation in this regard. The said recruitment notification does not contain a provision for relaxation in respect of vision requirements. It is also not the case of the Writ Petitioner that he requested for such relaxation. In these facts and circumstances, the question arises as to whether the stipulation of the distant vision related job qualification is liable to be interfered with under Article 226. In this connection, the judgments of the Supreme Court and of the Division Bench of this Court that were referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the Transport Corporation are illuminating. The said judgments that are reported in AIR 2012 SC 1803 (cited supra) and 2006 (3) CTC 449 (cited supra) make it abundantly clear that the terms and conditions for selection cannot be relaxed unless there is express power of relaxation in the terms and conditions and such power of relaxation is specified in the advertisement for the job. In fact, the Division Bench of this Court in the above cited judgement made it clear that no modification or relaxation should be made by the court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
18. The last issue to be considered is whether the stipulation with regard to distant vision without spectacles violates the Motor Vehicles Act as contended by the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner. The Motor Vehicles Act is, without doubt, the enactment that deals with http://www.judis.nic.in 21 licences to operate motor vehicles, including the terms and conditions relating thereto. However, there is nothing in the said enactment that precludes the stipulation of additional requirements by an employer in order to be considered for employment as a driver, whether such requirements are with regard to educational qualifications or physical fitness or health. In fact, if the said contention is to be accepted, other than a valid driving licence in respect of the relevant class of vehicle, no other qualification requirement can be imposed for the post of driver. Needless to say, such a contention is untenable.
19. Thus, the distant vision related condition is not in violation of the Disabilities Act 1995 or the Motor Vehicles Act. Moreover, such recruitment requirements are binding and should be applied without discrimination as per the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this Court in judgments cited supra. Further, in the factual context of recruitment for the post of driver in the Transport Corporation, such condition is neither irrelevant nor arbitrary. Consequently, interference was not warranted in the exercise of the power of judicial review. Therefore, we are of the view that the Writ Court erred patently in allowing the Writ Petition by holding that the said condition with regard to distant vision without the use of spectacles is invalid.
http://www.judis.nic.in 22
20. In light of the foregoing discussion, the Writ Appeal filed by the Transport Corporation is liable to be and is hereby allowed and the order of the Writ Court is set aside as a consequence. As a corollary, the Writ Appeal filed by the Writ Petitioner is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(K.R.C.B. J.) & (S.K.R. J.)
26.07.2019
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
sts
To
1) The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation(Kumbakonam) Limited,
Kumbakonam.
2) The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation(Kumbakonam) Limited,
Pudukkottai Region,
Pudukkottai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
23
K.RAVICHANDRABAABU, J.
and
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
sts
Common Judgment made in
W.A.(MD)Nos.1469 of 2017
& 266 of 2018
Dated:
26.07.2019
http://www.judis.nic.in