33-WP-430 & 437-17.DOC

Suchitra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

WRIT PETITION NO.430/2017

SHRI NIGEL ANTHONY S.

FERNANDES, aged 25 years,

Indian National, resident of Jairam

Complex, Building C-1, Flat X-2,

Neugi Nagar, 11 Panaji, Tiswadi,

Goa-403 001.

… PETITIONER

Versus

1) STATE OF GOA,

through its Chief Secretary,

having Office at Secretariat

Porvorim, Bardez-Goa.

2) SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,

Government of Goa, having Office at

Police Headquarters, Panaji-Goa.

3) DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,

State of Goa, having Office at

Police Headquarters, Panaji-Goa.

4) GOA MEDICAL COLLEGE,

through its Dean, Government of Goa,

having Office at Bambolim-Goa.

…RESPONDENTS

Mr. Gaurish Agni with Mr. T. Gawas, Advocates for the Petitioner.

Mr. Prashil Arolkar, Additional Government Advocate for the

State.

Page 1 of 46

28^th March 2022

33-WP-430 & 437-17.DOC

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.437/2017

SHRI DIPTESH M. RANE,

aged 28 years, Indian National,

resident of Saligao

H.No-2/67, Cotulla Wado,

Bardez, Goa - 403 511. … PETITIONER

Versus

1) STATE OF GOA,

through its Chief Secretary,

having Office at Secretariat

Porvorim, Bardez-Goa.

2) SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,

Government of Goa, having Office at

Police Headquarters, Panaji-Goa.

3) DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,

State of Goa, having Office at

Police Headquarters, Panaji-Goa.

4) GOA MEDICAL COLLEGE,

through its Dean, Government of Goa,

having Office at Bambolim-Goa. …RESPONDENTS

Mr. Parikshit Sawant, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Ms. Sapna Mordekar, Additional Government Advocate for

the State.

CORAM:

M. S. SONAK &

R. N. LADDHA, JJ.

Reserved on:

Pronounced on:

21^st March 2022

28^th March 2022

Page 2 of 46

28^th March 2022

33-WP-430 & 437-17.DOC

JUDGMENT: (Per M. S. Sonak, J.)

1.

Mr. Gaurish Agni and Mr. Tanmai Gawas appear for the

petitioner in Writ Petition No.430/2017 and Mr. Parikshit

Sawant appears for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.437/2017.

2.

Mr. Prashil Arolkar and Ms. Sapna Mordekar, learned

Additional Government Advocates appear for the respondents in

Writ Petition No.430/2017 and Writ Petition No.437/2017,

respectively.

3.

Learned counsel for the parties agree that both these

petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment and order

since substantially common issues of law and fact arise therein.

4.

The petitioners in both these petitions challenge inter alia

Memorandum dated 16.03.2017 (impugned memorandum) by

which respondent no.2 (Superintendent of Police) withdrew

offers of appointment to the posts of Scientific Assistant

(Documents) and Scientific Assistant (Computer Forensics) in the

Forensic Science Laboratory given to the petitioners vide

Memoranda dated 18.10.2016 on the ground that the petitioners

were "medically unfit” for the appointment to the said posts.

Page 3 of 46

28^th March 2022

33-WP-430 & 437-17.DOC

5.

Mr. Agni and Mr. Sawant, in unison, submitted that the

action of the respondents violates Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the

Constitution of India. They submitted that the action of the

respondents is also violative of the provisions of the Rights of

Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act). They submitted

that even otherwise the action of the respondents is vitiated by

non-application of mind because reliance was placed upon

inconclusive medical opinion and the most relevant document i.e.

the note dated 17.01.2018 was attempted to be suppressed from

this Court and in any case the same was completely ignored.

They submitted that the relevant and valid material on record was

ignored by the respondents and the action reflected in the

impugned memoranda is contrary to several decisions of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court inter alia on the aspect of discrimination

against the differently-abled and the principle of reasonable

accommodation i.e. now statutorily incorporated in the RPwD

Act. They relied on several decisions that shall be referred to in

the course of this j