P. Naveen Rao, J.

1. Heard Sri S.M. Subhan, learned counsel for petitioners in both the writ petitions, Sri P. Durga Prasad, learned standing counsel for APSRTC in W.P. No. 33462 of 2013 and Sri B. Mayur Reddy, learned standing counsel for TSRTC in W.P. No. 34419 of 2013.

W.P. No. 33462 of 2013:

Father of the petitioner who was working as controller of Ponnur Depot died in an accident on 12.11.1998. Petitioner along with his mother made an application on 10.4.2010 to provide employment. Petitioner claims that he is differently abled person, passed Degree and has knowledge in computers. Petitioner refused to receive additional monetary benefits and insisted for providing employment. Earlier petitioner filed W.P. No. 22152 of 2013 wherein interim order was granted to consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with G.O. Ms. No. 2 of 2013. By order dated 21.9.2013 impugned herein the claim of the petitioner to provide employment under the Bread Winner Scheme (BWS) was rejected on the ground that the petitioner has 100% physical disability and, therefore, not suitable to hold the posts of Conductor and Driver.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner being physically handicapped in accordance with the reservation provided to disabled persons, appointment ought to have been given to him. In substance, learned counsel would submit that petitioner is eligible to be appointed as Junior Assistant and such post ought to have been provided to him. Family of the petitioner is in destitute circumstances and they desperately need employment.

3. Respondents denied submission of application in the year 2010. According to deponent to the counter, application was made for the first time on 29.7.2013 enclosing copy of the Court order. Since petitioner was found to have 100% physical disability, no employment as driver or conductor can be provided. Accordingly, his claim was rejected. It is further contended that no provision is made under the bread winner scheme for appointment to the post of record tracer/booking clerk/announcer.

W.P. No. 34419 of 2013:

4. Father of the petitioner died on 10.12.1991 while working as Assistant Depot Clerk. On 17.4.1993 representation was made to provide appointment on compassionate grounds. He was provisionally selected for the post of Clerk and was also subjected to medical examination. Thereafter, no further orders were passed. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner filed W.P. No. 11489 of 2001. This Court disposed of the writ petition directing the petitioner to appear before the concerned hospital and to obtain fitness certificate and further directed to consider the same sympathetically, as petitioner is physically handicapped person. As corporation failed to appoint him in any post, petitioner filed W.P. No. 19348 of 2004. This Court by order dated 08.11.2004 directed the Regional Manager to consider his case for appointment under bread winner scheme. Petitioner was called for interview and by order dated 30.12.2004, petitioner was informed that he was not entitled to cleaner post due to amputation of his right leg.

5. In the counter affidavit, respondents asserted that petitioner was selected as Shramik under bread winner scheme and was subject to medical examination. He was examined and declared unfit by APSRTC-Tarnaka hospital for the post of Cleaner as his right leg was amputated upto knee. Stating that he was provided artificial leg a request was made by the petitioner for re-medical examination. Vide letter of the Regional Manager dated 29.3.2005 he was asked to report for re-medical examination, but it was informed by the Senior Medical Officer of APSRTC-Tarnaka hospital vide letter dated 12.11.2005 that petitioner did not attend for medical examination.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner's mother also died and there is no other source of livelihood to him and he continues to be unemployed; he is married and blessed with children. He would submit that on 10