The court emphasized the duty of the respondents to identify a suitable post for accommodating the petitioner under the relevant legislation for persons with disabilities.

JUDGMENT

DIPANKAR DATTA,C.J.

1. The petitioner was appointed as a 'driver' by the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (hereafter "the Corporation", for short) on April 01, 2011. By an order dated February 08, 2014, the Divisional Controller of the Corporation terminated the petitioner's service as 'driver' w.e.f. December 30, 2013 on the ground that upon medical examination, he was found to be colour blind.

2. The petitioner instituted this writ petition on October 23, 2018. It has been pleaded in paragraph 4 of the writ petition that the aforesaid order terminating the petitioner's service was not served on him but he was orally informed of such termination. Be that as it may, the prayer in this writ petition is for a direction on the respondents, namely the Vice-President and Divisional Director and the Divisional Controller of the Corporation to grant alternate appointment to the petitioner on the post of Security Guard in terms of the provisions contained in sec. 47 of the Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereafter "the 1995 Act", for short), in the interest of justice and to pay arrears of salary w.e.f. the date of termination, i.e., December 30, 2013.

3. The writ petition was considered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court on January 21, 2021. Objection was raised to the maintainability of the writ petition by the respondents citing the belated approach of the petitioner. The co-ordinate Bench, while noting that the subject matter of the writ petition was otherwise covered by a decision of the Supreme Court dated November 3, 2020, affirming the decision dated July 16, 2020 of another co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 9762/2019, passed an order on that date calling upon the respondents to file an affidavit as to whether they proposed to stand by the objection that the writ petition ought not to be entertained on the ground of delay and laches, despite the provisions of the 1995 Act as well as the said decision of the Supreme Court. We have found, from a subsequent order dated June 28, 2021 passed on this writ petition that the respondents were directed to clarify whether or not medical fitness test is conducted before appointing an individual as a driver. Having regard to the aforesaid orders, we need to look at the affidavits that have since been filed before the Court by the parties.

4. In the affidavit of the respondents titled "written submissions", the respondents have reiterated that the writ petition ought not to be entertained since it suffers from inordinate delay and laches. Certain other disclosures made in such written submissions also deserve to be noted. In paragraph 4, it has been contended that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under sec. 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 before the Labour Court at Akola and that he ought to be relegated to such forum. It is further evident from such paragraph that the respondents have pleaded complex questions of facts being involved in the present case for which the writ petition is not maintainable. The further contention is that the disability of colour blindness from which the petitioner suffers, is not due to the nature of work performed by him but was there from birth. Also, an allegation of fraud has been levelled against the petitioner. The suggestion seems to be that despite suffering from colour blindness, he had withheld the same from the respondents while obtaining appointment as a driver.

5. The petitioner, after receiving the written submissions, has filed a rejoinder dated July 14, 2021. It is pleaded therein that before the petitioner's appointment as a driver, the Divisional Controller of the Corporation by a communication dated December 18, 2020 called upon the petitioner to appear for medical examination. Referring to Exhibit 'L' of the affidavit, it has been pleaded in paragraph 3 th