Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 6411
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J
SRI. AHAMMAD ALI S/O. BABULAL PEERJADE – Appellant
Versus
THE MANAGIND DIRECTOR, NORTH WEST KARNATAKA ROAD, TRANSPORT CORPORATION – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 100490 OF 2025 (S-KSRTC)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. M.S. HARAVI
For the Respondents: SRI PRASHANT S. HOSAMANI
The court emphasized protecting the rights of employees with disabilities, ensuring updated medical certification adheres to current legal standards.
Headnote:(A) Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - Writ of Certiorari - Writ of Mandamus - The petitioner, suffering from permanent locomotor disability, sought alternative employment rather than surgery. The court follows an earlier decision granting similar relief, emphasizing the need for proper medical certification under current laws. (Paras 10-20)
(B) Disability Rights - The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - The Act replaced prior laws, necessitating adherence to updated certification protocols for disability. The court criticizes the reliance on outdated formats for medical certificates, mandating compliance with the new requirements. (Paras 11-15)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged a directive to undergo surgery instead of seeking alternative employment due to the disability. Prior rulings set a precedent regarding entitlement to lighter work for disabled employees.
Findings of Court:
Respondents are directed to provide appropriate employment without impeding the petitioner's benefits.
Issues: The main issues involve the legality of the previous orders for surgery and compliance with current disability rights legislation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that alternatives to surgery should be prioritized and that authorities must follow current guidelines for medical certification.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks to challenge a directive regarding surgery. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. court emphasizes updated standards must be followed in medical certification. (Para 3) |
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. The petitioner is before this Court, seeking the following prayer:
“1. To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the endorsement bearing No. vaakarasaa/bevi/sibbandi/d-1/2703 dated 03-12-2024 issued by the 2nd respondent as per Annexure-G.
2. to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to continue the service of the petitioner in the alternative post at 3rd respondent depot forthwith.”
2. In identical circumstances, this Court following the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench in W.P.No.102218/2024 disposed on 09.01.2025, held as follows:
“1. The petitioner is before this Court, calling in question the order, dated 18.01.2024, by which the petitioner who suffers from 50% permanent locomotor disability is directed to undergo surgery.
2. Heard the learned counsel Shri M.S. Haravi appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel Shri Prashant S.Hosamani appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
3. The issue in the lis is with regard to grant of an alternative job or a lighter job to the persons, who suffer permanent disability and are employed in the Corporation. The issue need not detain this Court for longer or dwell deep into the matter. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in an identical circumstance has elaborately considered the issue and rendered certain directions in W.P. No.102082/2024, I deem it appropriate to follow the said order and grant the same benefit to the present petitioner except observing that the petitioner shall not be directed to undergo any surgery as is directed in the impugned order. The Coordinate Bench has held as follows:
“10. As noted above and despite there being a specific direction issued by this Court to issue certificates in prescribed format, despite there being Circular dated 28.11.2023, issued by the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Karnataka, the Medical Authority seems to have not paid attention to the same and has failed to furnish details required to be mentioned in the medical certificate in a legible manner and in the language understandable by a common man.
11. Necessary to note that The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act, 1995’) has been repealed in terms of Section 102 of THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act, 2016’). Chapter X of the Act, 2016 deals with Certification of Specified Disabilities.
12. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Rules, 2017’) have been promulgated in place of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Rules, 1996.
13. Rules 17 and 18 of the Rules, 2017 provide for filing of application for certificate of disability in Form No. IV and issuance of certificate of disability in Form Nos. V, VI and VII as the case may be by the Medical Authority. The said Forms have been adopted by the Karnataka State Government in terms of Rules 14 and 15 of the Karnataka State Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2019 published on 30.08.2019. Despite the Act, 2016 and the Rules 2017 being in place as above, the Medical Authority is continuing to issue the Medical Certificate as per Form No.III which was provided under the Repealed Act, 1995 and Repealed Rules, 1996.
14. For the immediate perusal, the prescribed Form Nos. IV, V, VI & VI of application, of disability certificates are reproduced hereunder for immediate perusal:
FORM- IV
Application for Obtaining Certificate of Disability by Persons with Disabilities
[See rule 17(1)]
(1)Name: _____________ _________________ _________________ (Surname) (
