AMARJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the paper book.

(2.) The petitioner who was working as Conductor with the Punjab Roadways, was ordered to be retired from service on medical ground under Rule 5.11 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules Vol.11 by order dated 8.7.1999. In this writ petition, the petitioner claims appointment on the alternative post of Clerk under Rule 5.12 of the aforesaid Rules. The petitioner was referred to Civil Surgeon, Gurdaspur for medical examination under Civil Services Rules Vol.1, Rule 3.5 as the petitioner was complaining continuous pain due to disc displacement. He was complaining of pain in the left leg and hip and was therefore, unable to perform the duties of conductor. On 1.4.99, the Civil Surgeon gave an opinion that the official is unable to perform the duties of conductor. The petitioner was declared only fit for a sitting job and not where he was required to move about. On a further clarification, the Civil Surgeon gave the final opinion that the petitioner is a patient of back bone problem. Due to this, he is unable to perform the duties of Conductor. On 25.5.1999, the petitioner, on the basis of the medical report, requested that he may be adjusted on a post like Clerk, Ledger Keeper, Cashier etc. On 26.5.1999, the petitioner was served with a notice of retirement in the category of medical unfit. Petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notice and submitted that he may be appointed on an alternative vacant post like Assistant, Store Keeper, Booking Clerk, Ledger Keeper, Cashier, Adda Fee Collecting Clerk, Clerk etc. The petitioner was asked by letter dated 27.5.1999 to give information as to whether he knows Punjabi typing with the speed of 30 w.p.m. This was the requirement for being appointed on the post of Clerk under Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Condition of Service) Rules, 1994. On the same date, the petitioner sent a reply in writing stating therein a number of posts for which Punjabi typing was not necessary. He also stated hat he does not know how to type. Ultimately, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected and the impugned order has been passed retiring the petitioner from service.

(3.) Written statement has been filed. The claim put forward by the petitioner has been controverted. It has been stated that the petitioner has been correctly retired on the ground of medical fitness under Rule 3.5 A of C.S.R. Vol. I. It is stated that since the petitioner did not know how to type in Punjabi, his request for appointment on post of Clerk was declined. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was entitled to be appointed on the post of Clerk as he has been retired on the ground of medical unfitness. In support of her submissions, the learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and another v. Mohd. Ismail and others, 1 1991(2) R.S.J. 149 and a judgment of the Division Bench in this Court in the case of S. Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors., 1995(2) R.C.J. 500. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the claim of the petitioner has been considered in accordance with the applicable rules. The discretion vested in the respondents aas not been exercised arbitrarily. Therefore, in fact the impugned order has been passed after taking into consideration all the necessary facts and circumstances. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.