COMMON ORDER:

The issue in all the writ petitions is one and the same. All the writ petitioners are Drivers in the respondent- Corporation in various depots and all the petitioners were medically unfit and without providing any alternate employment, they were removed from services on the ground that they are suffering with colour blindness.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that in similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed orders in Ch. Joseph v. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation and others¹2025 SCC OnLine SC 1592, in view of the same, all the writ petitions are heard together and all the writ petitions are disposed of by way of a common order.

Heard Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.33026 of 2023, Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.4361 of 2026, Sri A. G. Satyanarayana Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.9599, 10507, 10731 and 10974 of 2026, Sri Mandru Sambasiva Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.10983 of 2026, Sri Ramakotaiah Kandala, learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.11067 of 2026 and Sri R. Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC appearing for the respondent-Corporation in all the matters and perused the material on record.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.Nos.33026 of 2023 submits the petitioner is questioning the Impugned Award passed in I.D.No.22 of 2016, dated 11.01.2023, learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.4361 of 2026 submits the petitioner is questioning the Circular issued by the respondent No.2 in Circular No.PD-15/2015, dated 14.05.2015, learned Counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.9599, 10507, 10731, 10974 and 10983 of 2026 submits the petitioners are questioning the impugned Proceedings issued by the respondent No.2 vide No.P2/754(1)/2018-PO(IR), dated 21.03.2023 respectively and learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.11067 of 2026 submits the petitioner is questioning the impugned Proceedings issued by the respondent No.2 vide No.L4/785(8)/2016-HR, dated 23.12.2017.

The similar situated person in the respondent- Corporation has approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to the colour blindness and the same was disposed of by directing the respondent- Corporation to provide alternate employment in view of colour blindness of the drivers and the relative portion of the said order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ch. Joseph v. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation and others (Supra-1) is as follows:

“39. To conclude, the record before us makes it clear that the Appellant was prematurely retired from service on medical grounds without any meaningful effort by the Respondent-Corporation to explore his suitability for alternate employment. This action, taken in disregard of Clause 14 of the binding Memorandum of Settlement dated 17.12.1979 and without adherence to principles of fairness or accommodation, cannot be sustained in law.

40. The Corporation’s omission to consider redeployment violates both statutory and constitutional obligations. Settled jurisprudence, including Kunal Singh (supra), which mandates that an employee who acquires a disability during service must be protected through reassignment where possible. The duty to reasonably accommodate such employees is now part of our constitutional fabric, rooted in Articles 14 and 21.

41. While judicial restraint guards against overreach, it must not become an excuse for disengagement from injustice. When an employee is removed from service for a condition he did not choose, and where viable alternatives are ignored, the Court is not crossing a line by intervening, it is upholding one drawn by the Constitution itself. The employer’s discretion ends where the employee’s dignity begins.

42. In light of the foregoing, the judgment of the High Court in W.A.No.1343 of 2017 is set aside. Th