LAWS(APH)-2011-11-153

T.JYOTHI Vs. GOVT.OF A.P.

Decided On November 09, 2011
T.Jyothi Appellant
V/S
GOVT.OF A.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been instituted by four individuals challenging the validity of the proceedings dated 25.04.2007 passed by the 3rd respondent - District Educational Officer, Vizianagaram terminating their services as Secondary Grade Teachers with immediate effect.

(2.) ONE Smt.K.Padmavathi, a physically challenged person with hearing impairment filed WP No. 6760 of 2006 in this court. A Division Bench considered the said case and by its judgment dated 22.8.2006 held that the said Smt.K.Padmavathi is illegally and unjustly deprived of the opportunity of appointment notwithstanding the declaration of the law made by the Parliament and the fact that people who are utterly unqualified for filling up of the posts have been appointed as such against the quota of the posts reserved for the challenged category. The court has also awarded public law damage in a sum of Rs. One lakh to the individual granting liberty to recover the said amount from those persons who are responsible for illegal appointments thereby depriving Smt. K. Padmavathi the opportunity of employment. In view of this judgment, the entire issue relating to the selection and appointment of certain candidates in Vizianagaram District under the physically challenged category has come to be reconsidered with particular reference to the percentage of disability suffered by the selected candidates. It is found that the petitioners 1 and 2 herein were selected under the District Selection Committee selections in the year 2001 while the 3rd petitioner was similarly selected in the year 2002 and the 4th petitioner in the year 2003. Since these four petitioners have been selected under the hearing impaired category of challenged persons, they were referred for medical opinion and for the assessment of their disability to the ENT Hospital at Koti, Hyderabad, through the proceedings dated 15.5.2006. The Hospital at Koti assessed the disability of the 1st petitioner and that of the 3rd petitioner at 1% each while the disability of the 2nd and 4th petitioners to be 10% and 25% respectively. That triggered the impugned order resulting in termination of their services.

(3.) SINCE the learned Senior Counsel has raised a serious issue with regard to the manner in which the petitioners have been subjected to examination at the ENT Hospital, Kloti, Hyderabad, to quell any misgivings entertained by the writ petitioners, I directed the petitioners 1 to 3 herein to be examined at the Government General Hospital, Guntur, by constituting a Medical Board. Incidentally, the 4th petitioner is already appointed as a teacher once again and consequently for the present we are not concerned with her case. Pursuant to the orders passed by this court, the Superintendent, Government General Hospital, Guntur through his communication dated 1.8.2012 intimated the petitioners 1 to 3 herein to appear before the Regional Medical Board, Government General Hospital, Guntur on 13.8.2012 at 9.30 AM. The 2nd petitioiner has not appeared at all. The petitioners 1 and 3 have appeared. The Regional Medical Board also comprised of the Professor and Head of the Department of the ENT, Guntur Medical College, Guntur and Government General Hospital, Guntur. The 1st petitioner was found to be having loss of hearing of 40 dB (40 decibel) in her right ear while the loss of hearing was assessed as 38dB in her left ear. Thus, the estimated hearing loss in her case was considered to be ranging between 30-35dBs in both ears and hence it was opined that she was suffering from 22% of hearing impairment which is categorized as mild hearing impairment. Insofar as the 3rd petitioner is concerned, the loss of hearing in her right ear was found to be 40 dB while in the left ear, it was 45 dB. The estimated hearing loss is 30-40 dBs in both the ears and the hearing impairment is assessed to be 24%, falling within the category of mild hearing impairment. The Superintendent, Government General Hospital, Guntur, has made available the report to this court. I have in fact requested the learned counsel to peruse the said report and make the necessary submissions in that regard.