SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 5516

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, JJ.
Rathod Anil - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 8771 of 2021, CM APPLs.27317 of 2021, 33220 of 2022 & 9368 of 2023
Decided On : 18-12-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr.Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Siddhant Buxy, Mr.Arijeet Shukla, Mr.Dushyant Kaul, Mr.Yashraj Samant and Mr.Krishna Sumanth, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr.Sushil Raaja, Sr. PC for UOI.

IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the importance of the initial disability certificate and held that subsequent medical certificates obtained by the petitioner did not override the findings of the officially constituted Medical Boards. The court also ruled that the requirement to undergo medical examination for civil posts is not violative of the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Headnote:

Disability - Engineering Services Examination - Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - [Mechanical Engineering] - [Annexure-I of ESE Rules, 2018] - [Section 3(3) of the Rights of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016] - [Rule 18 & 19 of ESE Rules, 2018] - [Medical Examination] - [Benchmark Disability] - [Medical Board Findings]

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a Mechanical Engineering graduate, appeared for the Engineering Services Examination (ESE), 2018 conducted by UPSC as an Orthopaedic Disabled (OH) candidate. He was recommended successful for 'Engineering Services in Mechanical Engineering' but was later declared unfit for all services due to disability in both lower limbs. The petitioner challenged this decision before the Tribunal, claiming disability only in one leg.

Finding of the Court:

The Tribunal upheld the decision, stating that the petitioner did not meet the benchmark disability for the post he was recommended for. The court emphasized the importance of the initial disability certificate, which rendered the petitioner ineligible for consideration to the recommended post. The court also noted that the subsequent medical certificates obtained by the petitioner did not override the findings of the officially constituted Medical Boards.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner met the benchmark disability for the post he was recommended for, as per the ESE Rules and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the requirement to undergo medical examination for civil posts is not violative of the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The petitioner's challenge to the conditions prescribed under the ESE Rules was deemed belated, as he had participated in the examination without protest and only contested the results after being disqualified.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded to the petitioner. The court refused to interfere with the findings of the Medical Boards and upheld the decision that the petitioner did not meet the benchmark disability for the recommended post.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, J.

1. The challenge in this writ petition is to orders dated April 07, 2021 passed in O.A. No.1559/2020 and July 12, 2021 passed in R.A.No. 38/2021 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") whereby the O.A. as well as R.A. preferred by the petitioner were dismissed.

2. In brief, petitioner (a Mechanical Engineering graduate from NIT, Surathkal, Karnataka) appeared for Engineering Services Examination (ESE), 2018 conducted by UPSC for recruitment to various Engineering posts and services in the Government of India as an Orthopaedic Disabled (OH) candidate. Petitioner was recommended successful by the UPSC to the `Engineering Services in Mechanical Engineering' in the PH1 (Orthopaedic Handicapped) category. On medical examination of the petitioner by the Railway Medical Board on November 26, 2018, he was informed vide letter dated December 21, 2018 that the Medical Board found him `unfit for all services on account of disability of both lower limbs (BL)', for which the PH vacancies were not identified as per Annexure-I of ESE Rules, 2018.

3. As provided under Rules, petitioner preferred an appeal for a second medical examination. Further, relying upon disability certificate dated January 08, 2019 from District Surgeon-cum-Medical Superintendent, District-Bidar, Karnataka, the disability was claimed only in left lower limb with no disability in the right lower limb. Petitioner also claimed to have obtained a medical certificate on December 27, 2018 from Matoshri Neurosciences Centre at Hyderabad which reflected that he had old (L) leg polioclastic disease affecting quadriceps and leg muscles.

4. Railway Board vide letter dated March 20, 2019 informed the petitioner that the Appellate Medical Board had declared him `unfit' for all services in PwD category on account of both legs affected.

5. Aggrieved against the findings of the first Medical Board as well as Appellate Medical Board, petitioner preferred O.A. before the Tribunal for setting aside the communication of the Railway Board to the petitioner vide letter dated March 20, 2019 declaring him unfit for Engineering Services in the Government of India on account of disability in both legs. Petitioner also prayed for treating him as Orthopaedic Disabled (OH) candidate with one leg (OL) disability of 50-55% as per disability certificate dated 08.01.2019 and consequently declare him suitable for Mechanical Engineering Services.

6. In nutshell, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner satisfies the benchmark disability having 50-55% disability in his left leg on account of PPRP (Post Polio Residual Paralysis). However, the disability certificate dated May 25, 2009 obtained by the petitioner is erroneous to the extent it certified disability in both lower limbs, which was issued to the petitioner when he was a minor aged about 15 years. Further, since the said certificate is valid for a period of ten years, the competent medical authority instead of assessing his disability again, issued the same disability certificate No.4364 dated October 30, 2018 in the format prescribed in the ESE Rules without changing the contents.

7. In support of his stand that disability is only in one leg, reliance is placed by the petitioner upon medical report dated December 06, 2018 obtained from Dr.T. Umesh, Neuro Surgeon, Matoshree Neurosciences Centre, Hyderabad, which reflects, "Neurogenic lesion involving mainly left leg". Reliance is further placed upon medical certificate dated December 27, 2018 issued by said Dr.T. Umesh which mentioned that petitioner had old (L) leg Polioclastic disease affecting quadriceps and leg muscles and the disease was not active and was part of burnt out disease in the past. The fresh disability certificate No.08/08 dated January 08, 2019 obtained by the petitioner from the competent medical authority in his home district Bidar, is further relied to contend th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top