- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:693 WP No. 110126 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 110126 OF 2025 (S-KSRTC) BETWEEN: MARUTESH S/O. VEERABHADRAPPA BETAGERI AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O. MUDHOL VILLAGE, TALUK: YELBURGA - 583 236, DIST: KOPPAL. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABHISHEK KALLED, ADVOCATE) AND: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KALYAN KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (KKRTC), KOPPAL DIVISION, DIST: KOPPAL – 583 231. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAKASH HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 09.12.2025 IN ¸ÀA.PÀPÀgÀ¸Á¤/PÉÆ«/¹§âA¢/¹-3/2081/2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-H IN RESTRICTING THE LIGHTER ALTERNATIVE JOB TILL 27/11/2025; ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO CONTINUE AND CHANGE THE PETITIONER’S POST TO THE ALTERNATIVE POST OF LIGHTER JOB PERMANENTLY AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.02.03 10:49:15 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:693 WP No. 110126 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Abhishek Khalled, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Prakash Hosmani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. Perused the material on record. 3. The petitioner has assailed the endorsement dated 09.12.2025 (Annexure-H), issued by respondent- Corporation, whereby the petitioner has been directed to submit a fresh medical certificate in order to continue in the alternative lighter post already granted to him. 4. The case of the petitioner is that he was working as a driver with the respondent-corporation and was diagnosed with spinal canal stenosis, resulting in permanent locomotor disability to an extent of 50-55% as certified by the Medical Board vide disability certificate dated 31.12.2017. The Medical Board opined that the petitioner was unfit to discharge duties as a driver and recommended that he be accommodated in a lighter alternative post. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:693 WP No. 110126 of 2025 Acting upon the said medical opinion and in terms of the circular issue by the Corporation, the petitioner was provided with an alternative lighter post. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that despite the subsistence of a valid disability certificate issued by the competent medical board, the respondent has issued impugned endorsements insisting upon submission of a fresh medical certificate as a precondition for continuation in the lighter post. It is contended that such insistence is arbitrary, unsustainable and contrary to the circular governing accommodation of disabled employees, particularly when there is no allegation of improvement in the medical condition of the petitioner. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- Corporation places reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Leelavathi N.P. Vs. The Managing Director1 (“Leelavathi N.P.”) and submits that this Court has 1 W.P.No.5622/2022 disposed of on 05.07.2023. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:693 WP No. 110126 of 2025 prescribed specific norms regarding the contends and form of disability certificate. It is further contended that the petitioner has produced a subsequent certificate indicating disability of 43%, which is inconsistent with the earlier certificate indicating disability of 50-55% and therefore, the respondent was justified in insisting upon a fresh medical examination by the medical board. 7. This court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the records. 8. In Leelavathi N.P. this Court has held at paragraph Nos.6 and 7 as under: 6. In addition to above mentioned norms, this Court while disposing of W.P. No.16755/2022 has issued the following details to be furnished: (k) to contain the specifications of the disability of particular part of the body and the materials relied to arrive at such a conclusion. (l) The details furnished to be legible and readable to the common man. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:693 WP No. 110126 of 2025 7. A person with a disability means a person suffering not less than 40% of a specified disability as envisaged under Section 2(r) of the Disability Act, 2016. The said certificate of the disability to be in the prescribed Form Nos.VI and VII of the Right of Person with Disability Rules, 2017. In light of the norms specified above, the petitioner to undergo medical examination and the disability certificate to be obtained with the said specifications and on submission of the disability certificate by the workman the respondent-authority is at liberty to look into the aspect and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. 9. This Court has held that the disability certificate must contain clear specifications regarding the nature and extent of the disability of the particular body part, the certificate must be issued in accordance with Forms-VI & VII prescribed under the Rights of Persons with Disability Rules, 2017 (“Rules 2017” for short) and a person suffering from not less than 40% falls within the definition of a person with “disability” under Section 2(r) of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:693 WP No. 110126 of 2025 10. In light of the principles laid down in the aforesaid decision, this Court is of the view that the respondent-Corporation is justified in seeking a disability certificate strictly in conformity with the statutory requirements and judicial directions. However, at the same time the petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefit of lighter work pending such verification. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to undergo medical examination by the competent medical board and submit a fresh disability certificate in the prescribed form and containing the requisite specifications, within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 11. Upon submission of the disability certificate, the respondent-corporation to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of 4 weeks thereafter. 12. In the interregnum, the respondent-Corporation is directed to continue the petitioner in the alternative - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:693 WP No. 110126 of 2025 lighter post, until a final decision is taken on the basis of the disability certificate to be furnished by the petitioner. 13. With the above observation and direction the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA EM Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18