- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31463 WP No. 23965 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 23965 OF 2025 (S-KSRTC) BETWEEN: B.S.INDIRA BAI, W/O. BALAJI M., AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT C/O. NARAYANA NAIK, SAPTHAGIRI LAYOUT, SIRA TOWN, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572137. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BASAVARAJU M.C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027. 2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER K.S.R.T.C., TUMKUR DIVISION, TUMKUR-572101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RENUKA H.R., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31463 WP No. 23965 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Basavaraju M.C., counsel for the petitioner and Smt.H.R.Renuka, counsel for the respondents appeared in person. 2. This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: i) Issue a writ in the nature of a writ of certiorari by quashing the impugned office order bearing No. KARASA/TUVI/SIBBANDI/C-1/977/2025-26 22/07/2025 issued by the second respondent vide Annexure H to the writ petition in so far as accommodation of light work under circular number 1735 dated 25/04/2025, instead of regulation 17(1) of KSRTC cadre and recruitment regulation 1982 is concerned, and ii) Issue a writ in the nature of a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to accommodate the light work to the petitioner under regulation 17(1) of the KSRTC cadre and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31463 WP No. 23965 of 2025 recruitment regulation 1982, permanently with pay protection under the facts and circumstances of the case, and (iii) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. 3. Counsel for the petitioner, in advancing his submissions, strenuously contended that the petitioner is a victim of an acid attack. It was urged that the issuance of endorsement and consequent withdrawal of the light-duty assignment earlier extended under Regulation 17(1) of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Cadre and Recruitment Regulations, 1982 (for short, “the Regulations”), is wholly untenable. In such circumstances, it was prayed that this Court may be pleased to issue a direction to the Corporation to continue accommodating the petitioner in light-duty work under Regulation 17(1) of the Regulations, with attendant pay protection. 4. Counsel for the Corporation, in reply, submitted that the issuance of endorsement is fully justified. It was argued that the petitioner had already been accommodated - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31463 WP No. 23965 of 2025 under the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, having regard to the fact that she is a victim of an acid attack. It was vehemently contended that the petitioner cannot, as a matter of right, insist upon accommodation under Regulation 17(1) of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Cadre and Recruitment Regulations, 1982 (for short, “the Regulations”). Accordingly, it was urged that the writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care. 6. It is undisputed that the petitioner is an employee of the Corporation and that she is a victim of an acid attack. Taking note of the said disability, the Corporation has already accommodated her by assigning light-duty and table work under the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The contention and prayer that she should further be accommodated under Regulation 17(1) of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Cadre and Recruitment Regulations, 1982, with pay protection, cannot be acceded to. The reason is plain: the petitioner cannot, as a matter of right, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31463 WP No. 23965 of 2025 demand accommodation under Regulation 17(1) of the Regulations when she has already been extended the benefit under the Disability Act. I therefore find no justification to interfere with or quash the endorsement issued by the Corporation. The reasons recorded therein are just and proper. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Because of the dismissal of the Writ Petition, the interim order granted, if any, stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications, if any are disposed of. SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66