The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for fair and conclusive assessment of disability in compliance with the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. The judgment emphasizes the importance of creating conditions and opportunities for the welfare and betterment of citizens with disabilities and highlights the unfairness and arbitrariness of depriving a qualified candidate of public employment based on inconclusive medical reports.

JUDGMENT

Tushar Rao Gedela, J. - In the present case, the petitioner assails the report dated 21.02.2019 of the Appellate Medical Board of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi (Department of Ophthalmology), communicated to the Petitioner vide covering letter dated 08.03.2019, conducted in compliance of order dated 22.11.2018 of this Court whereby the Medical Board consisting of three senior doctors had concluded that the Petitioner was having visual disability of 20% only.

2. This is the second round of litigation for the Petitioner who had earlier assailed the order dated 27.09.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in O.A. 985/2016.

3. The Petitioner was a candidate for recruitment of All India Service for the year 2015. He made his application claiming reservation under the Visually Handicapped category. He was successful in the written examination and also participated in the interview on 05.05.2015. He states that he was sent for his medical examination by the Medical Board of the Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Hospital (LNJP). The facility in that behalf existed at Guru Nanak Eye Centre which is a part of the same establishment.

4. His medical examination was conducted on 03.07.2015 and the doctor certified the extent of his handicap as 20%. The minimum handicap required for a candidate to qualify as a handicapped category is 40% and, consequently, he was examined by the Appellate Board which too found his disability to be only to the extent of 20%. Consequently, the petitioner's candidature was cancelled by the DOP&T on 29.09.2015 and he, therefore, approached the Tribunal challenging the two medical reports dated 03.07.2015 and 21.07.2015 and the resultant order passed by the DOP&T dated 29.09.2015.

5. The Petitioner relied upon a certificate dated 26.02.2016 obtained by him upon his medical examination at All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), according to which his handicap was assessed at 75%. The Tribunal by judgment dated 27.09.2018 held that since the petitioner had been found to be disabled to the extent of 20% by the Medical Board and the Appellate Board, reliance could not be placed by the petitioner on a privately obtained medical report from the AIIMS. Consequently, the Original Application was dismissed. Petitioner assailed the judgment of the Tribunal dated 27.09.2018 by W.P.(C) 12481/2018.

6. In the earlier WP (C) No.12481/2018, this Court by order dated 22.11.2018 has in paras 6, 7 and 8 passed the following directions:--

'6. The notice issued by the DOP&T dated 12.02.2018 in respect of Civil Services examination 2017 deals with the procedure to be followed for the purpose of medical examination of the candidates. Though strictly speaking, this procedure may not be attracted in case of the examination in question which is the CSE 2014, considering the nature of controversy raised - which relates to the extent of the petitioner's disability, we are of the view that the procedure prescribed in Rule 17 of the aforesaid procedure in relation to CSE 2017 could be invoked to resolve the controversy fairly so that, in case, the petitioner is indeed suffering from visual impairment in excess of 40 per cent, he is not unduly denied appointment despite his being found to be meritorious otherwise, as a disabled candidate. Rule 17 provides that when the dispute relates to the extent of disability, the matter would be assessed by AIMS, Delhi by a team of doctors consisting of different specialists / doctors other than those involved in the initial assessment as far as possible. The findings of the AIMS team are then communicated to the Appellate Medical Board concerned. On the basis of the said findings, the Appellate Medical Board would form its final opinion. The said Rule reads as follows:

'In case of PH candidates, after filing of appeal by any PH candidate within the stipulated period as per CSE Rules, the appellate medical examina