1. Challenges to assessment and reassessment of benchmark disabilities of persons recruited under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. (Para 1 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 714
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Ashok Kumar Jain, J.
Ramprakash Kharlwa S/o Gopi Ram Kharlwa - Petitioner
Versus
The Director, Elementary Education - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15370 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13602 of 2023, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14850 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15043 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15151 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15385 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15387 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15392 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1544 of 2024, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15804 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15832 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15947 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15950 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15952 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15954 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15956 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15958 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15959 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15967 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15971 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16024 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16061 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16142 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16145 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16148 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16202 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16242 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16243 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16247 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16380 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16531 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16545 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16546 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16659 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16688 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16689 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16696 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16706 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17019 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17216 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17293 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17294 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17303 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17611 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17700 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17749 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17750 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17876 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17918 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18779 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19013 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19015 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19024 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19364 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 462 of 2024, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4896 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 681 of 2024, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 683 of 2024, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 685 of 2024, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6868 of 2023, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 690 of 2024, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 737 of 2024
Decided On : 27-01-2026
Important Points
The State has the authority to re-verify disability certificates for government employment to prevent fraud. Such certificates are not conclusive, and appointments obtained via fraudulent certificates are void ab-initio, allowing termination without a full disciplinary inquiry.
Subject
Service Law - Employment Reservation for Persons with Disabilities
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Sections 2(r), 3(5), 20, 32, 33, 34, 56, 57, 58, 59, 91 - Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, 21, 41, 46 - Right of State to verify disability certificates - State Government is competent to re-verify or re-assess disability certificates submitted for appointments against reserved posts - No provision in the law suggests that a certificate once issued by a medical authority is binding or conclusive for all purposes, and the State has a right to ensure the legitimacy of the benchmark disability (Paras 38, 43, 48).
(B) Fraud and Public Employment - Fraud vitiates every solemn act - If employment is secured on the basis of a fraudulent certificate, the appointment is ab-initio illegal - For such illegal appointments, the employer is not required to comply with the principles of natural justice or conduct a full-fledged disciplinary inquiry before terminating services (Paras 45, 57).
(C) Certification Standards - Disability certificates must be issued strictly in accordance with guidelines notified by the Central Government under Section 56 of the Act - Any certificate issued by a non-designated authority or contrary to prescribed guidelines is void and non-est in the eye of law (Paras 23, 47, 60).
(D) Reasonable Accommodation - While the State must adopt an inclusive approach, the principle of reasonable accommodation does not prevent the State from conducting a re-assessment exercise to weed out fraudulent claims and ensure that benefits reach genuine beneficiaries (Paras 41, 53).
Facts of the case:
Multiple petitioners, who were either appointed or seeking appointment to government posts under the benchmark disability category, challenged a government circular requiring candidates and employees to undergo medical re-examination of their disabilities. The petitioners contended that certificates issued by competent medical authorities should be conclusive and that the mandate for re-verification was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violated their fundamental rights and the doctrine of reasonable accommodation.
Findings of Court:
The State is authorized to re-verify disability certificates through general or specific orders if suspicion of fraud arises. There is no conclusive presumption in favor of a disability certificate once issued. To implement the law in true spirit and prevent the usurpation of reserved seats, the State may direct candidates or employees to appear before designated certifying authorities for re-assessment.
Issues: Whether disability certificates issued by medical authorities are binding on the State and whether the State has the authority to compel employees or candidates to undergo re-assessment of their benchmark disabilities to verify the genuineness of their claims.
Ratio Decidendi: The State has a constitutional obligation to ensure equality of opportunity and fairness in public appointments. Preventing fraud in the reservation process for persons with disabilities is essential to protect the rights of genuine beneficiaries. Since the law does not make certificates conclusive, and fraud vitiates all transactions, the State's action to re-verify disabilities is a legal exercise of its duty to maintain transparency and integrity in public employment.
Result: Writ petitions are disposed of; the respondents are free to assess or re-assess the benchmark disability of the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the guidelines framed by the Central Government.
(B) Fraud and Public Employment - Fraud vitiates every solemn act - If employment is secured on the basis of a fraudulent certificate, the appointment is ab-initio illegal - For such illegal appointments, the employer is not required to comply with the principles of natural justice or conduct a full-fledged disciplinary inquiry before terminating services (Paras 45, 57).
(C) Certification Standards - Disability certificates must be issued strictly in accordance with guidelines notified by the Central Government under Section 56 of the Act - Any certificate issued by a non-designated authority or contrary to prescribed guidelines is void and non-est in the eye of law (Paras 23, 47, 60).
(D) Reasonable Accommodation - While the State must adopt an inclusive approach, the principle of reasonable accommodation does not prevent the State from conducting a re-assessment exercise to weed out fraudulent claims and ensure that benefits reach genuine beneficiaries (Paras 41, 53).
Facts of the case:
Multiple petitioners, who were either appointed or seeking appointment to government posts under the benchmark disability category, challenged a government circular requiring candidates and employees to undergo medical re-examination of their disabilities. The petitioners contended that certificates issued by competent medical authorities should be conclusive and that the mandate for re-verification was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violated their fundamental rights and the doctrine of reasonable accommodation.
Findings of Court:
The State is authorized to re-verify disability certificates through general or specific orders if suspicion of fraud arises. There is no conclusive presumption in favor of a disability certificate once issued. To implement the law in true spirit and prevent the usurpation of reserved seats, the State may direct candidates or employees to appear before designated certifying authorities for re-assessment.
Issues: Whether disability certificates issued by medical authorities are binding on the State and whether the State has the authority to compel employees or candidates to undergo re-assessment of their benchmark disabilities to verify the genuineness of their claims.
Ratio Decidendi: The State has a constitutional obligation to ensure equality of opportunity and fairness in public appointments. Preventing fraud in the reservation process for persons with disabilities is essential to protect the rights of genuine beneficiaries. Since the law does not make certificates conclusive, and fraud vitiates all transactions, the State's action to re-verify disabilities is a legal exercise of its duty to maintain transparency and integrity in public employment.
Result: Writ petitions are disposed of; the respondents are free to assess or re-assess the benchmark disability of the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the guidelines framed by the Central Government.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- constitutional law
- disability law
- evidence law
- practice and procedure
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ram Pratap Saini with, Mr. Aamir Khan, Mr. Akshit Gupta with Ms. Pragya Seth, Mr. Harendra Neel, Mr. Tanuj Gupta Dr. Anil Sharma, Mr. Tanveer Ahamad, Mr. Bhupendra Jain, Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Mr. Anand Sharma, Mr. Ajatshatru Mina with, Mr. Himanshu Kala, Mr. Sudhir Yadav, Mr. Ashwinee Kumar Jaiman with, Mr. Keshav Parashar, Moin Khan and, Mr. Ashish Kabra, Mr. Balveer Singh Beniwal
For the Respondent: Ms. Mahi Yadav, AAG with, Mr. Kuldeep Singh Rathore & Ms. Saba Naaz, Mr. Gopal Krishna Sharma, AGC with, Mr. Saumil Sharma, Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Ms. Anjali Ranga,, Mr. Mahendra Pratap Singh,, Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Ms. Anshul Sharma, Ms. Arya Garima for, Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG, Mr. Sandeep Maheshwari Ms. Pooja Sharma, AAAG,, Mr. Vishal Kumar,, Mr. Dhruv for, Mr. Manoj Sharma, AAG, Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC with, Mr. Prakhar Jain, Mr. Narendra Singh Choudhary, Mr. Nikhil Pal Singh, Mr. S.K. Panwar, Mr. Abhijeet Panchariya Ms. Bhavya Kala for, Mr. Devansh Sharma, Dy.G.C., Mr. Neeraj Batra, GC with Ms. Gunjan Chawla and Ms. Sneha Kaushal, Mr. Ajay Poonia, Mr. Prem Chand Dewanda Ms. Karishma Soni for, Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, AGC, Mr. Surendra Singh Naruka, AAG with, Mr. Jitendra Kumar Takar, Mr. Basant Singh Chhaba, AAG with, Mr. Rahul Gupta &, Mr. Satyam Bhardwaj, Mr. Parth Sharma for, Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG, Mr. Avanish Kumar Sharma, Dy.G.C
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ram Pratap Saini with, Mr. Aamir Khan, Mr. Akshit Gupta with Ms. Pragya Seth, Mr. Harendra Neel, Mr. Tanuj Gupta Dr. Anil Sharma, Mr. Tanveer Ahamad, Mr. Bhupendra Jain, Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Mr. Anand Sharma, Mr. Ajatshatru Mina with, Mr. Himanshu Kala, Mr. Sudhir Yadav, Mr. Ashwinee Kumar Jaiman with, Mr. Keshav Parashar, Moin Khan and, Mr. Ashish Kabra, Mr. Balveer Singh Beniwal
For the Respondent: Ms. Mahi Yadav, AAG with, Mr. Kuldeep Singh Rathore & Ms. Saba Naaz, Mr. Gopal Krishna Sharma, AGC with, Mr. Saumil Sharma, Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Ms. Anjali Ranga,, Mr. Mahendra Pratap Singh,, Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Ms. Anshul Sharma, Ms. Arya Garima for, Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG, Mr. Sandeep Maheshwari Ms. Pooja Sharma, AAAG,, Mr. Vishal Kumar,, Mr. Dhruv for, Mr. Manoj Sharma, AAG, Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC with, Mr. Prakhar Jain, Mr. Narendra Singh Choudhary, Mr. Nikhil Pal Singh, Mr. S.K. Panwar, Mr. Abhijeet Panchariya Ms. Bhavya Kala for, Mr. Devansh Sharma, Dy.G.C., Mr. Neeraj Batra, GC with Ms. Gunjan Chawla and Ms. Sneha Kaushal, Mr. Ajay Poonia, Mr. Prem Chand Dewanda Ms. Karishma Soni for, Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, AGC, Mr. Surendra Singh Naruka, AAG with, Mr. Jitendra Kumar Takar, Mr. Basant Singh Chhaba, AAG with, Mr. Rahul Gupta &, Mr. Satyam Bhardwaj, Mr. Parth Sharma for, Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG, Mr. Avanish Kumar Sharma, Dy.G.C
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners argued disability certificates are binding; State argued re-verification is needed to prevent fraud and ensure genuine candidates benefit. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
3. The State has the authority to re-verify disability certificates. Certificates not issued under Chapter X of the RPwD Act are invalid. Fraud vitiates everything. (Para 23 , 24 , 31 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 )
4. A disability certificate is not conclusively binding; the State has the right to reassess benchmark disabilities to prevent fraud and ensure compliance with the RPwD Act, 2016. (Para 38 , 48 , 52 , 54 , 59 , 60 )
5. Writ petitions disposed of; petitioners have no right to challenge reassessment; respondents are free to reassess disabilities as per Chapter X of the RPwD Act, 2016. (Para 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 )
6. Can a state government order a re-examination of a disability certificate issued for a public employment claim?
Yes, the State has the authority to re-verify or reassess disability certificates, especially when there is suspicion of fraud or irregularities, to protect the integrity of the reservation system. (Para 38 , 40 , 43 , 62 )
7. Is a disability certificate binding on the employer for the purpose of public employment?
No, a disability certificate is not conclusively binding. An employer can require reassessment to verify that the candidate meets the benchmark disability requirements for the specific post. (Para 38 , 47 , 48 , 52 )
8. What is the duty of the state government regarding the prevention of fraud in disability certification for public employment?
The State is duty-bound to prevent misuse of provisions meant for persons with benchmark disabilities and has the right to re-verify certificates to ensure only genuine candidates benefit from reservation. (Para 36 , 40 , 54 , 59 )
9. What is the consequence for an employee who secured a government job using a fake disability certificate?
No protection under the law exists for such individuals. The employer may terminate services without a full inquiry after recording reasons, as the appointment is considered ab-initio illegal. (Para 45 , 46 , 56 , 57 )
10. Which authority is competent to issue a valid disability certificate under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016?
Only a certifying authority designated under Section 57 of the RPwD Act, 2016, can issue a valid certificate. A certificate issued by any other authority is invalid. (Para 48 , 60 , 62 )
ORDER :
1. As all these matters raises a common question of law, they are being decided by a common order. The controversy involved in these petitions pertains to the assessment and reassessment of benchmark disabilities of persons with disabilities, and their subsequent re-evaluation in light of the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “RPwD Act, 2016”).
2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15370/2025 has been preferred with the following prayer:–
It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the entire record relating to the case of the petitioner and after perusing the same may be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition:-
1. By an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, the respondent be directed to allow the petitioner to continue serve duties on the post of Teacher Gr. III Level I in compliance of appointment order.
2. By an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, the Impugned Order dated 10.09.2025 by which the respondents again and again going to verification of disability of petitioner, may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside.
3. By an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, the respondents be directed to not to insist the petitioner to re-examine disability in the garb of impugned order dated 10.09.2025.
4. Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6868/2023 has been preferred with the following prayer:–
In these circumstances, it is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to accept this writ petition and
i) the impugned order dated 31.03.2023 cancelling the selection of humble petitioner in Low Vision category on the post of Livestock Assistant in pursuance to advertisement dated 11.03.2022 may kindly be declared illegal and arbitrary and therefore, same may kindly be quashed and set aside.
ii) by issuing the writ of mandamus, order or direction in the nature thereof respondents may kindly be directed to:
a) consider the candidature of humble petitioner in the Low Vision category for selection on the post of Livestock Assistant in pursuance to advertisement dated 11.03.2022;
b) give appointment to humble petitioner on the post of Livestock Assistant in Low Vision category with all consequential benefits.
Or in the alternative
(a) Send the case of humble petitioner to AIIMS, Jodhpur for re-medical examination by Disability Board constituting of Ophthalmic experts to find if the candidature of humble petitioner can be considered under LV category in pursuance to advertisement dated 11.03.2022; and
(b) accord appointment to humble petitioner with all consequential benefits on the post of Livestock Assistant in Animal Husbandry Department pursuant to advertisement dated 11.03.2022, if the candidature of humble petitioner can be considered under LV category in pursuance to advertisement dated 11.03.2022.
iii) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case may kindiy also be passed in favour of the Petitioner.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13602/2023 has been preferred with the following prayer:–
It is, therefore humbly prayed that Your Lordship may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:-
1. The impugned order dated 31.03.2023 (Annexure-10) qua the humble petitioner may kindly be quashed and set aside and respondents may be directed to appoint the humble petitioner on the post of Livestock Assistant in pursuant to the advertisement dated 11.03.2022 as also amended advertisement dated 27.05.2022 with all consequential benefits w.e.f. the date other person are given appointment in pursuant to the advertisement keeping in
