U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANR versus MOHD. ISMAIL AND ORS.

Citation: [1991] 2 S.C.R. 274 · Decided: 11-04-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ANDANR. 
v. 
MOHD. ISMAIL AND ORS. 
APRIL 11, 1991 
-...--
B 
[K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J.S. VERMA AND 
V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.] 
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Other than 
Officers) Service Regulations, 1981: Regulations 17(2) and 17(3)-
Drivers-Medically examined-Found unsuitable because of ill health 
c 
or poor eye-sight-Whether services to be dispensed with or to be 
offered alternative jobs-Discretion vested in the Corporation-Exercise 
thereof. 
The respondents were employed as drivers in the U .P. State Road 
Transport Corporation. The Corporation bas framed the U.P. State 
D 
Road Transport Corporation Employees (other than Ofticers) Service 
Regulations, 1981, Regulations 17(2) inter a/ia requires the drivers to 
undergo medical test particularly vision test every year and under 
Regulation 17(3) services of those drivers who fail to pass the fitness test 
are to be dispensed with, with the proviso that such drivers may, in the 
discretion of the Corporation, be offered alternative jobs. Pursuant to 
E 
these Regulations, the Managing Director of the Corporation issued two 
circulars dated December 19, 1986 and March U, 1987 directing the 
Regional Managers to terminate the Services of the drivers who are 
medically found unfit to drive the vehicles with the further direction 
that such drivers should be paid benefits like retreuchment compensa-
lion under Section 6(N) of the U .P. Industrial Disputes Act. 
F 
The respondents were subjected to medical examination and It 
was found that their eye-sights were defective. Consequently, the 
Corporation discharged the respondents with immediate effect by pay-
ing them one month salary in lieu of notice and also retrenchment 
compensation under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The respondents 
G 
challenged their retrenchment by means of writ petitions before the 
High Court. The High Court allowed the writ petitions directing the 
Corporation to offer alternative jobs to the respondents. Being aggrie-
,... 
ved, the Corporation bas preferred these appeals to this Court. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court, 
H 
274 
U.P. S.R.T.C. v. MOHD. ISMAIL 
275 
HELD: 1. Re1111lation 17(2) requires that the drivers have to 
A 
undergo medical test partlculary vision test every year, or at such inter-
vals as may be prescribed by the General Manager of the Corporation. 
Regulation 17(3) has two branches. The Orst branch provides power to 
the Corporation to remove the driver from the service who fails to pass 
the medical test. The second branch of Regulation 17(3) though styled 
as proviso is an Independent and substantive provision providing dis-
B 
cretlon to the Corporation to offer an alternative job to the retrenched 
driver. [278B-D] 
2. The discretion conferred by Regulation 17(3) confers no vested 
right on the retrenched workmen to get an alternative job in the Corpo-
ration. Like all other statutory discretion in the administrative law, C 
Regulation 17(3) creates no legal right in favour of a person in respect 
of whom the discretion Is required to be exercised other than a right to 
have his case honestly considered for an alternative job by the 
Corporation. [279B] 
3. The Hlgh Court was in error in directing the Corporation to D 
offer alternative jobs to the respondents because the Court cannot 
direct the statutory authority to exercise the discretion in a particular 
manner not expressly required by law and that it could only command 
the statutory authority by a writ of mandamus to perform its duty by 
exercising the discretion according to law. The Court cannot command 
the Corporation to exercise discretion in a particular manner and in E 
favour of a particular person. That would he beyond the jurisdiction or 
the Court. [279D-E] 
ln the Instant case, the Corporation has denied Itself the discre-
tion to offer an alternative job which the rtlllllatlon requires it to exer-
cise in individual cases of retrenchment. Although it Is open to an F 
authority to which discretion has been entrusted to lay down the norms 
or rules to regulate exercise or discretion, it cannot however deny 
itself the discretion which the statute requires it to exercise in indi-
vidual cases. The concerned authority of the Corporation therefore 
are required to consider. the cases of retrenched drivers for aiternatlve 
jobs. [279F-G; 280A] 
G 
4.1 There are two aspects to be borne in mind in exercising the 
discretion. Firstly, there

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.