- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13084 WP No. 8271 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.8271 OF 2025 (S-KSRTC) BETWEEN: G.S. GANAPATHI S/O LATE GANESHA SHASTRI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT HOUSE NO.7 'K' BLOCK KSRTC QUARTERS BANNIMANTAPA, MYSURU - 577 015. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.C. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR CENTRAL OFFICES K.H. ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 027. 2. THE DIRECTOR (ESTABLISHMENT AND VIGILANCE) THE CHAIRMAN THE COMMITTEE FOR VERIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVE POST, KSRTC CENTRAL OFFICES K.H. ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 027. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13084 WP No. 8271 of 2025 3. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC, BANNIMANTAP MYSORE RURAL DIVISION MYSURU - 570 017. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO.KARASA. KEKA. SIBBANDI. C-6/109/742/2024-25 DATED 27/08/2024 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-F INSOFAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED (SERIAL NO.56) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner is selected and appointed as a driver-cum-conductor with the KSRTC in the year 1999. The petitioner has suffered fractures in the left leg and he is constrained to undergo surgery necessitating fixators. Consequentially, the petitioner - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13084 WP No. 8271 of 2025 is with light work based on the Disability Certificate issued by the concerned Medical Board in the year 2014. The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the decision dated 27.08.2024 to stop the assignment of light work. The fulcrum of the petitioner's case is that he has suffered permanent disability of 40% and therefore, he will not be able to work as a Conductor and if he is not able to work as a Conductor, the Court must interfere in the present writ petition directing the respondents to continue with the assignment of light work. 2. Mr. M.C. Basavaraju, the learned counsel for the petitioner, relies upon the Disability Certificate/s issued in the years 2014 and 2024 to substantiate the petitioner's case that yet he has the disability of 40% and must therefore, be assigned light work. Ms. Renuka H.R., the learned counsel for the KSRTC, is called upon to accept notice, and the learned counsel submits that the petitioner cannot be - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13084 WP No. 8271 of 2025 granted any indulgence based on the recent Disability Certificate in view of the fact that such Certificate is not issued in accordance with the guidelines laid down by this Court in W.P.No.7140/2023 which is disposed on 27.07.2023. 3. Ms. Renuka H.R emphasizes that the 'disability' will be the disability to do the required work, and such disability will be assessed based on the Disability Certificates produced in compliance with the directions in the aforesaid Writ Petition; that one of the directions is that the Disability Certificate must mention the details of physical impairment and the methodology adopted in computing such disability. The learned counsel points out that if in the Disability Certificate issued in the first instance, the Board has observed that the petitioner does not require any re-assessment, in the next Certificate issued after ten years, the Board's opinion is that - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13084 WP No. 8271 of 2025 petitioner will require physiotherapy and re- assessment after two years. 4. Ms. Renuka H.R relies upon this facet to contend that there is serious doubt about the genuineness of the disability as stated in the recent Disability Certificate which gets exaggerated by the lack of details as required in the guidelines issued by this Court. Further, on instructions, the learned counsel submits [a] that the petitioner has been assigned to work as a Conductor in an electric vehicle for which 50% of seats will be reserved, [b] that the Conductor in these vehicles are assigned seats and are not required to move to and fro when the vehicle is on the move to collect the fare and issue tickets and [c] that this work would not be strenuous. 5. These rival submissions are considered and this Court must observe that it would be imperative for every Medical Board to issue Disability Certificates strictly in terms of the guidelines issued - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13084 WP No. 8271 of 2025 by this Court in W.P.No.7140/2023. This Court must also observe that the efficacy of these guidelines cannot be undermined by the Boards being lax. The next question would be, what relief could be granted to the petitioner even if there is some deficiency in the recent Disability Certificates or if such Certificate is issued notwithstanding the guidelines? 6. This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be found fault for deficiency in the Certificate issued by the Medical Board and he must be granted relief as would be just and reasonable. The petitioner must, therefore, be at liberty to approach the concerned Medical Board with a copy of this Court's order in W.P.No.7140/2023 and a certified copy of this Order for an effective Certificate and approach the concerned with the respondents for due change in the assignment if such change would be warranted in terms of such Certificate. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13084 WP No. 8271 of 2025 7. The next question is whether the petitioner must continue to do the light work that is assigned to him until this exercise is completed. It is undisputed that the petitioner from the date he reported to duty [after his surgery] is assigned Counter-work (light work) and he is not called upon to do a work which may not be very tedious. This Court, in the circumstances brought about on the recent assignment, cannot conclusively opine that he has a disability that prevents him from discharging his duties unless there is an effective Disability Certificate. In the light of the aforesaid, the following: ORDER [A] The petition stands disposed of. [B] The petitioner herein is reserved with liberty to file an application with the concerned Medical Board for re-assessment of the disability along with a copy of this Court's order in - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13084 WP No. 8271 of 2025 W.P.No.7140/2023 and a certified copy of this order. [C] The Medical Board is directed, if the petitioner avails this liberty, to issue Disability Certificate in terms of the guidelines within [3] three weeks. [D] The petitioner shall be at liberty based on such Disability Certificate issued in terms of this order, to seek light work. Consequentially, the pending application [IA.1/2025] stands disposed of. SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20