ORDER :

Vinit Kumar Mathur, J.

The present appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan after a delay of 112 days and therefore, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed for condonation of the said delay.

2. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent.

3. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. The delay of 112 days caused in filing the present appeal is condoned.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the appeal itself.

5. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 29.01.2026 passed by learned Single Bench whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner-respondent was allowed and the appellants had been directed to offer appointment to the respondent-petitioner on the post of Compounder/Nurse Junior Grade in Ayurveda Department.

6. Briefly noted the facts of the present appeal are that the petitioner-respondent was selected for the post of Compounder/Nurse Junior Grade on and thereafter, the selection of the petitioner-respondent was cancelled vide order dated 08.09.2025. Against the order of cancellation, he preferred the writ petition before this Court.

7. The bone of contention before the learned Single Bench was whether the petitioner is suffering from disability in both legs of lower limb or the disability is only in one leg. Since, the condition of appointment was that if a person is having disability to the extent of 40% or more in one leg, he will be eligible for the post. The petitioner-respondent submitted a certificate of disablement to the extent of 50% in the left lower limb. On re-examination by the appellant authorities, it was found that disability suffered by the petitioner-respondent is in both the legs and therefore, he was ineligible for appointment on the post of Compounder/Nurse Junior Grade. In pursuance of the submission made before this Court, the interim orders were passed whereby the respondent-petitioner was directed to be examined by a Medical Board of All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) at Jodhpur.

8. In pursuance of the directions issued by the learned Single Bench, the respondent-petitioner was examined on two occasions by the Medical Board constituted at AIIMS. The reports of the Medical Board of AIIMS categorically stated that the petitioner- respondent is suffering from disability to the extent of 70% in the left lower limb and the right lower limb of the petitioner-respondent is not having any kind of disability.

9. In view of the reports submitted by the Medical Board of AIIMS, the learned Single Bench came to the conclusion that the petitioner-respondent is suffering disability only in the left leg to the extent of 70% and since he is not having any disability in right leg, therefore, he fulfills all the requisites qualifications of the advertisement for the post of Compounder/Nurse Junior Grade. Therefore, the writ petition was allowed and a direction was issued to the State for offering him appointment to the post of Compounder/Nurse Junior Grade.

10. The argument of the learned State Counsel is that the report of the examination conducted by the State functionaries is final and therefore, no other report can be relied upon for considering the disability of the respondent-petitioner in the light of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. vs. Ravindra Kumar Sharma and Ors. reported in (2016) 4 Supreme Court Cases 791. The learned counsel for the State very fairly submits that the reports of Medical Board of AIIMS were never challenged and at the time of deciding the writ petition, no doubt was made on the reports of the Medical Board of AIIMS. He however, prays that the appeal may be allowed and the order of learned Single Bench may be quashed and set aside.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner-respondent has justified the order and submits that as per the terms and conditi