JUDGMENT : The petitioner, a driver in Kalpetta Depot, KSRTC, approached this Court challenging Ext.P8 order of the Managing Director declining his request for category change. 2. The petitioner has locomotor disability as evident from Ext.P4. His case was referred to the Appellate Medical Board by Ext.P7 proceedings. Thereafter, noting that the petitioner had acquired this disability while he was employed under a foreign employer, his request for category change was declined by the impugned proceedings. 3. I hold that the order is legally unsustainable. The acquisition of disability while in service or outside cannot be a reason for declining such request. What is to be considered is whether an employee can be engaged as a driver or not. If the petitioner cannot drive the vehicle as he could have done otherwise, necessarily, KSRTC should take a decision to allow category change by engaging him in any other duty other than as a driver. 4. The provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (for short, the “Act”) do not discriminate an employee who acquired disability relatable to the employment or outside the employment. Section 20 of the Act mandates that there shall be no discrimination in employment. It is appropriate to refer Section 20(4) of the Act, which reads as follows:- “(4) No Government establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his or her service; Provided that, if an employee after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, shall be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits; Provided further that if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier.” 5. The very purpose of the statutory provisions as referable under Section 20 of the Act is to protect an employee against discrimination on account of the disability he acquires. Thus, the provisions are based on egalitarian concepts and ethos professed under Articles 14 of the Constitution. Thus, the law intends to avoid any kind of discrimination between the abled and disabled mainly on the ground of physical disability. Thus, the provisions are based on egalitarian concepts and ethos professed under Articles 14 of the Constitution. Thus, the law intends to avoid any kind of discrimination between the abled and disabled mainly on the ground of physical disability. The law attempts to strike a balance between the interest of a disabled and the object of employment by directing the employer to allow category changes protecting his pay. 6. KSRTC needs to be concerned about safety of the passengers as well as that of public. KSRTC cannot ignore the disability of the driver which may render him incapable of driving the vehicle. The category change should be allowed to such person in the interest of the public as well. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. Necessary decision shall be taken by the Managing Director within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above.