Does Regulation 17(3) force the Corporation to give another job to an unfit driver?

No. It gives a choice: terminate or offer an alternative job. This is discretion, not a right. The choice must be fair and reasonable.

Can courts order the Corporation to place a worker in a specific post?

Courts can require proper exercise of discretion, but cannot dictate the exact outcome in individual cases.

What was wrong with the 1986–87 circulars?

They made termination automatic for medically unfit drivers, removing the case-by-case discretion that Regulation 17(3) requires.

Did the Supreme Court agree with the High Court’s direction to give jobs?

No. The High Court overstepped by directing alternative employment. The Corporation’s appeals were allowed.

UP State Road Transport Corp. v. Mohd Ismail (1991 AIR 1099)

Quick Summary

When a bus driver becomes medically unfit, must the Corporation give a desk job? No automatic right. Regulation 17(3) gives the Corporation a choice: terminate or offer an alternative post. That discretion must be used fairly and case by case, but courts cannot force a specific job placement. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s direction to appoint the drivers elsewhere.

Issues

Is the Corporation obliged under Regulation 17(3) to provide alternative employment to medically unfit drivers?
Did the High Court err by directing alternative employment for the respondents?

Rules

Regulation 17(3): Corporation may terminate a medically unfit driver; it may also offer an alternative job—this is discretionary, not mandatory.
Judicial review: Courts ensure discretion is used lawfully and reasonably, but they cannot command a specific outcome.
Fairness lens: Decisions should balance operational needs with employee welfare; blanket, automatic rules are invalid.

Facts (Timeline)

Employment: Respondents worked as drivers with UP State Road Transport Corporation.

1986–1987 circulars: MD directed automatic termination of medically unfit drivers, ignoring alternative posts.

Medical unfitness: Drivers (incl. Mohd. Ismail) found unfit due to defective eyesight; services terminated with retrenchment compensation under U.P. ID Act.

High Court: Ordered the Corporation to provide alternative employment.

Supreme Court: Corporation appealed; Court examined scope of Regulation 17(3) and the validity of the circulars.

Timeline: medical unfitness, termination, High Court order, and Supreme Court appeal

Arguments

Appellant: Corporation

Reg. 17(3) gives discretion, not a duty, to offer alternative jobs.
Courts cannot dictate specific appointments; only review process.
Operational needs and safety standards limit redeployment options.

Respondents: Workmen

Termination without exploring alternative jobs is unfair and mechanical.
MD’s circulars removed required case-by-case discretion.
Seek humane redeployment consistent with service rules.

Judgment

Appeals allowed. Regulation 17(3) offers two paths—termination or alternative employment—at the Corporation’s discretion. It is not a vested right of the driver.

Courts may ensure discretion is exercised lawfully, but cannot direct a particular posting.
The 1986 & 1987 circulars were flawed for prescribing automatic termination and bypassing individual consideration.
Discretion must be fair, reasonable, and sensitive to both safety and welfare.

Judgment visual: discretion under Regulation 17(3) must be fair and case-specific

Ratio Decidendi

Regulation 17(3) confers discretionary power—not a duty—to offer alternative employment to medically unfit drivers. Judicial control is limited to testing the manner of exercising that discretion, not substituting the decision.

Why It Matters

Clarifies limits of judicial directions in service matters with statutory discretion.
Guides public employers: avoid blanket circulars; decide case by case.
Balances safety-critical operations with humane treatment of unfit staff.

Key Takeaways

Point	Quick Note
Discretion, not duty	Reg. 17(3) allows but does not compel alternative posting.
No automatic rules	Blanket termination circulars are invalid; consider each case.
Judicial role	Courts review fairness of process; they don’t assign jobs.
Balance	Operational safety and employee welfare must both be weighed.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “MAY, NOT MUST” — Under Reg. 17(3), the Corporation may redeploy; it must decide fairly.

Identify: Is the driver medically unfit under rules?
Evaluate: Are suitable posts available without safety risk?
Decide: Record reasons—terminate or offer redeployment.

IRAC Outline

Issue: Whether Reg. 17(3) creates a duty to redeploy unfit drivers and whether HC could order specific appointments.

Rule: Reg. 17(3) grants discretionary choice; courts ensure fair exercise but cannot command outcomes.

Application: MD’s circulars removed discretion; HC overreached by directing appointments.

Conclusion: Appeals allowed; decisions must be individualized, reasoned, and fair.

Glossary

Discretion: A lawful choice between two or more options, exercised on relevant facts and reasons.
Redeployment: Shifting an employee to a different, suitable post instead of ending service.
Judicial Review: Court’s power to check if discretion was used fairly—not to replace the decision.

FAQs

No. The Corporation has discretion to consider it; decisions must be fair and reasoned.

No. Blanket rules that remove case-by-case discretion are improper under Reg. 17(3).

The Corporation should consider it and record reasons, but the law still leaves the final choice to its discretion.

A major role. Safety-critical services may limit redeployment options; this must be weighed fairly.

Case Meta

CASE_TITLE	UP STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. V. MOHD ISMAIL (1991 AIR 1099)
PRIMARY_KEYWORDS	Regulation 17(3); medical unfitness; alternative employment; discretion; Supreme Court
SECONDARY_KEYWORDS	retrenchment compensation; High Court directions; administrative fairness; public sector
PUBLISH_DATE	23 Oct 2025
AUTHOR_NAME	Gulzar Hashmi
LOCATION	India
Slug	up-state-road-transport-corp-v-mohd-ismail-1991-air-1099