( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for the respondent-Corporation sri K. Harinath, and at their request, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

( 2 ) ISSUE Rule Nisi.

( 3 ) THE petitioner was removed from service as a disciplinary measure, after holding a departmental enquiry against him. On his appeal, the punishment of removal imposed by the Disciplinary authority was reduced by the Appellate authority directing reinstatement of the petitioner into service as Conductor imposing a penalty of deferment of annual increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect on his future increments and treating the period of his absence till he reported duty as not on duty . In pursuance of the same, the petitioner reported to duty. At that stage, he was subjected to medical test to find out his suitability to the post. Initially, the Medical officer, who examined the petitioner, found defect in his left eye and held that he is unfit for the post of Conductor in A-2 Category. At the request of the petitioner, he was further subjected to Medical Examination by the Medical Board of the Corporation. The Executive Director (Medical Board) examined the petitioner and rejected the appeal and declared that he is unfit to the post of A-2-Category Conductor. Therefore, the petitioner was retired from the service with effect from 27-10-1997 in terms of regulation 6-A of the APSRTC Employees service Regulations, 1964. When the validity of the said order was questioned in w. P. No. 1594 of 1998, this Court, while dismissing the writ petition by its order dated 4-8-1998, held that the petitioner is entitled to seek appointment to an alternative post under the prevailing regulations, and therefore, he was directed to make necessary application before the prescribed authorities and the authorities were directed to consider the same in terms of those regulations. Meanwhile, pursuant to the interim order dated 20-1-1998 granted by this Court in the said writ petition, the respondents by proceedings dated 18-6-1998, considered and rejected the case of the petitioner for alternate employment stating that he was directly appointed to the post of Conductor and did not hold any post previously and that there is no provision to consider his case for alternate employment as per the rules. Pursuant to the order dated 4-6-1998 passed in the said writ petition, the petitioner made another representation seeking alternate appointment and the respondents, by proceedings dated 24-12-1999, rejected the same holding that there is no provision for providing alternative employment to conductors retired on medical grounds. The only provision applicable to conductors is to revert the medically unfit conductors to their former posts, if any, they held prior to appointment as conductors. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the rejection on the above ground is per se illegal and arbitrary. Once the provisions of the Persons With disabilities (Equal Opportunities, protection of Rights and Full Participation) act, 1995 (for short act 1 of 1996 ) applies to the Corporation, the Corporation has to provide an alternative employment, and if no alternative employment is available, they have to create a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or the employee attains the age of superannuation. Therefore rejection of the petitioner s case is arbitrary and illegal. He, therefore, prays for allowing the present writ petition.

( 4 ) IN opposition, the Corporation filed a counter-affidavit reiterating its stand mentioned in the impugned order. The ground stated for rejection in the counter-affidavit is that the petitioner did not hold any post prior to his appointment as conductor. As per Regulation 6-A (4) of the apsrtc Employees (Service) Regulations, 1964 (for short the Regulations ), in the opinion of the Medical Officer the employee is unfit to discharge the duties of the