Full Judgment
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent to consider the petitioner for appointment to the post of Driver in the second respondent office within the period that may be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.
ORDER
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition, seeking for a direction to the second respondent to give him appointment to the post of Driver in his office.
2. The petitioner has averred in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition that he is a physically challenged person, enrolled his name in the District Disabled Rehabilitation Centre, Ramanathapuram and his Identity Card Number is 1264. He was also issued with a disability certificate and his disability was assessed at 60%. It is further averred that he was issued with a Driving License by the Assistant Licensing Authority, Ramanathapuram on 24.12.2004. Subsequently, he enrolled his name in the District Employment Exchange, Ramanathapuram on 31.01.2006.
3. The petitioner states that the second respondent issued a Memo dated 31.12.2010, calling upon him to attend an interview on 03.01.2011 for the post of Jeep Driver in the second respondent office. Accordingly, he attended the interview on 03.01.2011. According to the petitioner, he was the only person, who attended the said interview. He has stated that he had undergone the driving test before the second respondent and he was found successful. Thereafter, he was instructed by the second respondent to produce the Performance Certificate from the concerned Regional Transport Officer.
4. According to the petitioner, he went to the Regional Transport Office on 04.01.2011, 05.01.2011 and 06.01.2011 for participating in the test drive before the Motor Vehicle Inspector. According to him, no test was conducted by the Motor Vehicle Inspector on the above said dates and therefore, he preferred a representation on 10.01.2011 to the first respondent, requesting him to permit him to undergo the test drive as instructed by the second respondent. Thereafter, he had undergone the test drive on 11.01.2011. According to him, the third respondent, instead of issuing the Performance Certificate, instructed him to produce the Fitness Certificate to drive the vehicle from the competent Medical Board. According to the petitioner, he was issued with a valid driving license in terms of Section 9 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the same is valid till 23.12.2024 and at the time of grant of driving license, the competent authority satisfied with his medical fitness. Hence, the third respondent was not correct in instructing him to produce the Fitness Certificate from the competent Medical Board. The petitioner further averred that after obtaining the driving license, he did not acquire any disability subsequently.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that he sent a representation on 24.01.2011 to the first and second respondents, enclosing the Certificate issued by the Medical Board and requested them to appoint him as Driver in the second respondent office. Since there was no response from the respondents 1 and 2, he has preferred the present writ petition.
6. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit on his behalf and also on behalf of the first respondent. It is stated that the second respondent is one of the Selection Committee Members for the post of Driver. Based on the recommendation of the Selection Committee Members, the appointment order to the post of Driver is given by the State Commissioner for the differently abled, Chennai. The petitioner is not eligible for the post of Driver. It is further stated that the petitioner is a differently abled person affected by infantile hemiplegia (Right Upper Limb (Rt UL) and Right Lower Limb (RLL)) and the percentage of disability is 50%. It is also stated that the petitioner was unable to drive the vehicle and failed in the test conducted by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Ramanathapuram. In the said circumstances, the Selection Committee did not select the petitioner and the same is approved by the District Collector. The second respondent states since the petitioner is a disabled person, if he is permitted to drive the vehicle, the persons travelling in the vehicle could not be safe. It is further stated that as per the Certificate given by the Medical Board, the petitioner is only fit to drive a vehicle according to his physical disabilities and he is not suitable to drive the Government vehicles. Hence, the respondents 1 and 2 sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
7. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 12.04.2012, pointing out the Driving License dated 24.12.2004 issued to the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner is fit to drive all Light Motor Vehicles. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner suffered 60% disability, even according to his own affidavit, hence, it is not safe to permit the petitioner to drive all Light Motor Vehicles. In these circumstances, this Court passed the following order:-
The petitioner suffers 60% permanent physical disability as per the certificate issued by Government Headquarters Hospital, Ramanathapuram. However, he was issued with a driving licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle. He applied for the post of Jeep driver in the office of the District Disabled Rehabilitation Officer, District Rehabilitation Centre, Ramanathapuram District. He was called for interview. No one attended the interview except the petitioner.
2.According to the petitioner, he should be appointed as driver. But the learned Special Government Pleader submits that since the petitioner suffers 60% disability, he is not fit to drive Light Motor Vehicle.
3.In the said circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner shall be subjected to medical examination by a Medical Board at Madurai Rajaji Hospital, Madurai.
4.Accordingly, a direction is issued to the petitioner to appear before the Medical Board on 23.04.2012 and the Medical Board is directed to examine the person and to give a report as to whether the petitioner is fit to drive Light Motor Vehicle.
5.Post the matter on 26.04.2012.
8. Thereafter, the Chairman, Regional Medical Board, Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai - 20 sent the Report of the Regional Medical Board and the same is extracted hereunder:-
Mr. Tharjudeen 31 yr/M has been certified as birth palsy with 60% disability in 2006 at Ramnad. He was admitted and detailed examination was done and he had mild spasticity all four limbs with Right residual infantile hemi paresis of mild to moderate severity. He has clumsiness of right hand movements and on holding pen in his right hand, he develops dystonic posturing of middle, ring and little finger. He is able to write normally with left hand. He has weakness of finger grip, hand grip and Toe grip. He has Circumduction gait of right side and clumsiness of right foot movement. At present his physical disability is 45%.
Driver job involves fine coordinated movements of foot and normal gripping power of hand. Spasticity and hand grip weakness will interfere him to perform the driver job effectively. Hence, I am of the opinion that he is UNFIT for driver job.
9. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
10. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Certificate issued by the Medical Board is doubtful and therefore, he has sought for further reference of the petitioner to another Medical Board. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents objected for the same.
11. Even as per the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, the petitioner has suffered 60% disability. In fact, in paragraph 6 of the affidavit, the petitioner has stated that he had sent a representation dated 24.01.2011 to the first and second respondents, enclosing a Certificate issued by the Medical Board, Government Hospital, Ramanathapuram and sought for appointment to the post of Driver. I have perused the Certificate dated 24.01.2011, which is extracted hereunder:-
1. Name of the Candidate :: Tharujideen
2. Father's Name :: Mohammed Mohaideen
3. Sex :: Male
4. Age on the date of :: 36
examination
5. Identification Marks :: 1. ABM in the middle of Chest
2. A scar on the middle of forehead
6. Diagnosis :: Infantile hemiplegia (Rt)
7.Clinical Examination Report:: Weakness of Rt U2 Rt U2
8. Handicap ::
9. Prognosis :: 50% Fifty Percent
10. Functional Capacities ::
11. Vocational Capacities ::
12. Recommendation of the
Medical Specialist, regarding
the eligible for registration in Recommended for the E.O.M. According to the License to drive modified definition given for the vehicles according to his physical Handicap disabilities.
Employment Capacity ::
12. Even as per the Certificate of the Medical Board, Ramanathapuram, the petitioner is only fit to drive modified vehicles according to his disabilities i.e., he is not fit to drive all the Motor Vehicles. Further more, the Regional Medical Board at Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai - 20 has found that the petitioner is not fit for the driver job.
13. After receipt of the report of the Regional Medical Board, when the matter was taken up for hearing, this Court has passed the following order on 07.06.2012:-
The petitioner seeks employment as a Driver in the second respondent office. But the respondents have taken a stand that the petitioner is not fit to drive Light Motor Vehicles.
Ramanathapuram Medical Board found that he is fit only to drive modified vehicles. This Court also directed the Medical Board at Madurai, Rajaji Hospital, Madurai to examine the petitioner and to issue a Certificate. The Madurai Medical Board also found that he is not fit. In the circumstances, it is not known as to how the licensing authority at Ramanathapuram issued driving license DL.No.F/TN/065/005819/2004dated 24.12.2004.
Hence, the third respondent is directed to produce the entire records relating to D.L.No.F/TN/065/005819/2004 dated 24.12.2004 on 14.06.2012. Post on 14.06.2012.
14. In response to that, the Regional Transport Officer, Ramanathapuram has sent a letter dated 12.06.2012 to the learned Special Government Pleader, stating that the records are not available as they were destroyed due to efflux of time. The contents of the said letter is also extracted hereunder:-
In response to the letter cited, we have taken sincere efforts to trace the connected file related to the issue of Driving Licence No.T/TN/0065/005819/2004. The file related to the year 2004. Based on the certificates issued by the competent Authority / Medical Officer Driving Licence would have been issued if deem fit or otherwise. The records such as Learner Licence base for issue of Driving Licence will be kept only for a limited period of one year only and the records were closed as L.Dis., and it was destroyed as the period of detention of records is over. The duration of records pertaining to the year 2004 is not really available in this office. Hence we are taking sincere efforts to trace the other connected file. Further we are producing the DL Register for favour of perusal. It is also learnt that the DL test was conducted by the Assistant Licensing Authority Thiru. S. Ravi, Motor Vehicle Inspector, Grade - I is now not in service and was removed from service. Hence, I request that 15 days time may be given to trace out the relevant records and produce the same before the Honourable Court.
In the said circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot claim for appointment to the post of Driver to drive all Light Motor Vehicle in the second respondent's office as he is only fit to drive modified vehicles according to his disabilities. Hence, there is no merit in the claim of the petitioner and this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
15. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 is closed.
16. However, the matter does not rest here. Though the petitioner himself has averred in his affidavit that he suffered 60% disability and two Medical Boards also have found that the petitioner is not fit to drive all Light Motor Vehicles and he is fit to drive only modified vehicles, the petitioner is able to secure the driving license to drive Light Motor Vehicles. An unfit person could not be issued the driving license, as that would endanger the life of the road users. As stated above, the records relating to the issuance of the driving license to the petitioner are not available in the office of the third respondent. Therefore, it is very clear that the petitioner was able to obtain the driving license without any medical examination or he has obtained the bogus medical certificate. In the said circumstances, as per Sections 16 and 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, the third respondent shall take action to cancel the driving license of the petitioner. Accordingly, the third respondent is directed to take action under Sections 16 and 19 of the Act for cancellation of the driving license of the petitioner.
17. Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Transport Commissioner and the Home Transport Department, Chennai to take measures to prevent the improper issuance of driving license by RTO offices.