Back
Directs Centre to Clarify Policy on Review Medical Boards After Appellate Opinion
In a significant development concerning disability reservation in civil services, the has directed the to clarify whether the practice of constituting Review Medical Boards after an has rendered its opinion is being followed uniformly. The order was passed by a bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Shail Jain on a petition filed by Ganatra Komal Pravinbhai, a visually disabled candidate who alleged that in the disability assessment process cost her a seat in the Indian Administrative Services.
A Challenge to the Assessment Process
The petitioner, an aspirant in the Civil Services Examination, claimed that two other candidates were irregularly granted disability certification after a so-called "" was constituted, despite initial findings by both the and the that they were not entitled to reservation benefits under . The petitioner argued that the is available only in cases of pathological myopia and not simple myopia.
Allegations of Manipulation
, representing the petitioner, submitted that the and the had both concluded that Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were not entitled to disability reservation. However, a was subsequently constituted, allegedly with a view to manipulating the process and granting them the benefit. When confronted with these submissions, counsel for the sought an .
The Core Legal Question
The central issue before the court is whether a can be legally constituted after an has already delivered its opinion. The court noted the seriousness of the allegations and directed the Centre to file an from an officer not below the rank of Secretary, clarifying whether such review boards are constituted as a matter of policy across all departments.
Key Observations from the Bench
The court recorded the petitioner's submission that
"the
as well as the
found that Respondent Nos.4 and 5 were not entitled to the
under the Persons with Disabilities Act."
It further noted the allegation that
"a
was thereafter constituted by the Respondents with a view to manipulating the process for granting the
to Respondent Nos.4 and 5."
What the Court Ordered
The bench directed the to file an stating whether the practice of constituting a after the 's opinion is followed across the board. The matter has been listed for on . The court also clarified that would be entertained, signaling its intent to resolve the issue expeditiously.
This case raises important questions about the integrity of medical assessment procedures for disability reservation and could have far-reaching implications for future civil services examinations.
