The Hindu : Tamil Nadu / Chennai News : Court orders appointment of physically challenged person as conductor in STC

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Sunday, Apr 26, 2009
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version

Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu - Chennai

Court orders appointment of physically challenged person as conductor in STC

K.T. Sangameswaran

“The petitioner can very effectively discharge the functions”

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has agreed with a physically challenged person, possessing a valid conductor’s licence, that he cannot be denied employment in the State Transport Corporation on the ground of physical deformity.

Even after 14 years of the advent of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, the State government had not identified conductor’s post for the purpose of this legislation. It needs immediate attention of the government, Justice S.Nagamuthu said in his order.

D.Pushparaj is physically challenged with 60 per cent disability and possesses a conductor’s licence. He registered himself in the local employment exchange. Following a notification by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation’s Villupuram Division, his name was sponsored for the conductor’ post along with several other candidates. The corporation did not send him a call letter. On enquiry, he was informed that since he was physically challenged, he could not be given employment as conductor.

The transport corporation said the petitioner was rejected as per the corporation’s rule, which stated that a candidate should be free from physical deformity. A conductor’s job involved frequent movement inside the bus and outside and this could not be done by the petitioner.

Allowing Mr.Pushparaj’s petition, Mr.Justice Nagamuthu said from the Motor Vehicles Act, it could be understood that whether a person was qualified to possess a conductor’s licence or not was a matter to be decided only by the competent authority. Once it had issued a licence on being satisfied that the deformity would not deter the person from working as a conductor, it could not be stated that by any other authority that he was not entitled to be appointed as a conductor on the ground he was physically unfit.

Since the petitioner’s physical fitness was seriously disputed by the corporation, Mr.Justice Nagamuthu directed Mr.Pushparaj to be present in the court. He did so. The Judge said he was able to see that the petitioner, barring a minor limp, could walk freely and steadily. “In the opinion of the court, the petitioner can very effectively discharge the functions of a conductor as is done by any other conductor with no physical deformity.”

It could not be blindly construed that any form of physical deformity would be a disqualification for being appointed conductor. “Such an interpretation, in my considered opinion, will surely cause violence to the right of equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution.”

The term “physical deformity,” as stated in the rule, should receive contextual interpretation.

Mr.Justice Nagamuthu said though the petitioner’s prayer was to consider him under the quota for persons with disability, in his considered opinion, even by putting him in the general quota, he was eligible for being appointed.

He directed the respondent to issue appointment order to the petitioner within two months.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Tamil Nadu