The division judge bench of the Tripura high court held that the court cannot go into the issue of disputed question of facts with regard to deciding the disability of the appellant and the opposite party/respondent No.9 as the same is not within the arena of this writ appeal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the Tripura Public Service Commission (Respondent no. 5) published an advertisement inviting online applications from citizens of India for the selection of candidates to fill 40 vacancies of Assistant Professor in various subjects. Then, the Appellant applied for the post, and the subject-wise name of the candidates was listed. Out of 11 candidates, only 4 candidates were physically handicapped and were competing for only one post. It was contended that the appellant along with the unofficial respondent No.9 appeared in the interview under the physically handicapped category in Bengali subject, wherein respondent No.9 was selected in the UR Physically Handicapped Category. Thereafter, the writ petition was filed by the appellant before the learned single judge and the learned single judge was of the view that the court has no expertise to determine the extent of disability. Aggrieved by this, the present writ petition is filed.
Contentions of the Appellant
The Appellant contended that the learned single judge has failed to appreciate the fact that respondent No.9 is not qualified with benchmark disability under the guidelines published by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Acts and Rules of Central Government as well as State Government. It was furthermore contended that the Appellant is suffering disability to the extent of 60% disability which is much higher than the unofficial respondent No.9.
Contentions of the Respondent
The Respondent No. 9 contended that the learned single judge rightly rejected the reliefs sought by the Petitioner. It was furthermore contended that as per the certificate issued by the State, Respondent No. 9 is suffering from disability to the extent of 50% and the same is in the nature of „Non-progressive‟ and „not likely to be improved‟.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that the primary issue involved in the appellant's case is whether the unofficial respondent No. 9's disability certificate was issued in accordance with the regulations and whether the appellant maintains that he is more disabled than the unofficial respondent No. 9.
It was furthermore observed that the disputed question of facts regarding the appellant's and the opposing party's (respondent No.9) handicap cannot be addressed by this Court and is outside the purview of this writ appeal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that there exists no infirmity in the order passed by the learned single judge.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court dismissed the writ appeal.
Case Title: Sri Ranjib Nath V. Union of India
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amarnath Goud, and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Biswajit Palit
Case No.: WA No.57 of 2023
Advocates for the Appellant: Ms. R. Guha, Advocate. Mr. MS Dey, Advocate. Mr. M. Debnath, Advocate. Ms. Sudipa Nath, Advocate.
Advocates for the Respondent: Mr. B. Majumder, Dy. SGI Mr. D. Sarma, Addl. G.A. Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate. Mr. R. Datta, Advocate. Mr. Kawsik Nath, Advocate. Mr. Dipjyoti Paul, Advocate.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
