SURESH CHAND Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ISSUE notice. Ms. Latika Chaudhary, proxy counsel for Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate for Delhi Transport Corporation (hereafter referred to as DTC) accepts notices on its behalf.

(2.) THE petitioners in all these proceedings were initially appointed by the DTC pursuant to Notification for recruitment to the post of Drivers in a selection process conducted by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) in 2008. All of them underwent medical examination in 2009 by the DTC Medical Board. In the case of several such applicants (numbering about 441 in all) which include all the petitioners before us, vision defects were found. On the representation of these candidates, a decision was taken on 22.12.2009 to call for a second medical opinion. This led to a second medical examination of such candidates by the Guru Nanak Eye Centre, GNCTD. It is not in dispute that the petitioners underwent the second medical examination. It is also not in dispute that the said medical board cleared their candidatures. Consequent upon this development, formal appointment letters were issued and the petitioners amongst others took charge of the posts.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioners submitted that the question of the petitioners being dealt with departmentally for alleged misconduct would not arise, because in the facts of these cases, vision defects arose after the employment and in the circumstances, Section 47 of the Disability Act applies. Learned counsel relied upon several decisions including the Dilbagh Singh v. DTC, : 2005(84) DRJ 208, Mohal Lal & Others v. State of Haryana & Others,, 2009(5) SLR 643 (P & H) and Kunal Singh v. Union of India & Anr., : (2003) (4) SCC 524.