The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for vigilance and proper identification of persons with disabilities, emphasizing the rights and empowerment of persons with disabilities as per the relevant Acts and international conventions.

ORDER :

Since in both the petitions common question of law and facts are involved, they are being heard and decided analogously.

1. These writ petitions have been filed challenging the impugned orders dated 02.09.2017 (Annexure-P/8 in WPS No.5639/2017 & Annexure-P/12 in WPS No.5650/2017 respectively), whereby, respondent No.1/National Mineral Development Corporation Limited (for short the “NMDC”) has withdrawn and cancelled the candidature of the petitioners from the post of Miscellaneous Attendant (Trainee) on the ground that disability certificates submitted by them in pursuance of Employment Notification No.5/2015 issued on 29.09.2015 have not been verified by the Issuing Authority i.e. District Medical Board, Dantewada.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1/NMDC conducted the special recruitment drive for Persons with Disabilities (PWDs) in Group “D” for the post of Miscellaneous Attendant (Trainee) on 29.05.2015 vide Employment Notification No.05/2015. In pursuance of such notification, petitioner Vijay Kumar Yadav has submitted disability certificate in this regard which was issued in his favour on 13.11.2006 (Annexure-P/5 in WPS No.5639/2017), whereby, he was having 40% locomotor disability and reassessment of disability is recommended after 3 years. Likewise, petitioner Mahesh Ram in WPS No.5650/2017 has also submitted his disability certificate vide Annexure-P/6 which was issued on 13.11.2006, whereby, he was having 40% disability of hearing impairment/deafness and no recommendation for reassessment has been made and same has been issued for lifetime.

3. After selection of the aforesaid petitioners, enquiry was conducted by the Department of respondent No.1/NMDC wherein it has been revealed that the certificates of the petitioners were not certified or verified by the concerned Medical Board. Therefore, respondent No.1 has constituted a committee for verification from the Office of Civil Surgeon. The office of Civil Surgeon, District South Bastar Dantewada has informed to respondent No.1 that the verification records of the disability certificate are not available in their office therefore, the same could not be verified. Further, show cause notices were issued to the petitioners seeking their clarification on account of non submission of verified disability certificate. The petitioners submitted their reply stating that the disability certificate submitted by them were issued in a Camp held at Nagar Palika Parishad. Along with said reply, petitioner Mahesh Ram submitted fresh disability certificate issued on 06.04.2017 and petitioner Vijay Kumar Yadav also submitted a fresh disability certificate issued on 28.03.2017. However, in view of terms and conditions of the said Advertisement, as the certificates were issued after the date of selection, the same were not considered by the respondent/Authorities.

4. On 24.04.2014, respondent No.1 again sent a letter to the concerned Civil Surgeon Dantewada regarding authenticity of Camp organized by Nagar Palika Parishad. In reply to the same, on 18.05.2017, the Civil Surgeon, Dantewada sent a memo/letter informing that for issuing a disability certificate, a Camp was organized at Magal Bhawan Dantewada which was approved by the Collector. It was also stated that in respect of disability certificate issued by Nagar Palika Parishad on 13.11.2006, no official record is available in their office. It was further stated that the copy of disability certificate is illegible, therefore, the same could not be verified and concerned persons (petitioners) may appear before the District Medical Board and after examination they may approach for obtaining fresh disability certificate. It has also been clarified that the certificate which has been issued in favour of the petitioners could be utilized for employment purpose for the limited period.

5. Respondent No.1 further sent a letter to the office of concerned District Collector on 30.05.2017 and, in turn, the Collector, Distr