Delhi High Court
Railway Board vs Prashant Kumar on 10 August, 2018
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 10th August, 2018
+ LPA 295/2018
RAILWAY BOARD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Om Prakash, Advocate
versus
PRASHANT KUMAR ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Rajan Mani, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
CM.APPL 21659/2018 (delay)
1. This is an application filed by the applicant/appellant seeking
condonation of 173 days delay in filing the present appeal.
2. Heard.
3. The prayer made in the application is not opposed. Delay of 173 days
in filing the present appeal is condoned.
4. The application stands disposed of.
LPA 295/2018 & C.M.21656/2018 (stay)
5. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the learned Single
Judge dated 11.10.2017 wherein challenge was laid to an order dated
31.12.2014 passed by the Chief Commissioner of Persons with
Disabilities (in short 'Commissioner') whereby the Commissioner had
L.P.A.295/2018 Page 1 of 5
considered and allowed the complaint of the respondent and held that
the action of the petitioner (appellant herein) to declare the respondent
unfit, is not tenable and called upon the appellant herein to allocate
appropriate service to the respondent within 30 days from the receipt of
the copy of the order.
6. The necessary facts which are required to be noticed for disposal of this
appeal are that pursuant to an advertisement published by Union Public
Service Commission (UPSC) dated 10.03.2012, the respondent made an
application under the reserved category i.e. persons with disability. The
respondent had relied upon a certificate issued by the C.M.O. and Civil
Surgeon, District Vaishali, Bihar with 40% disability in his left leg. The
respondent was declared successful, however, when he appeared before
the Medical Board, it was found that there was weakness in left arm as
well and resultantly, declared unfit.
7. Mr.Om Prakash, counsel appearing for the appellant has strongly urged
before the Court that learned Single Judge has failed to take into
account the fact that every candidate, who was successful in the written
examination, had appeared for the medical examination. Reliance is
placed on the Medical Board Certificate, which shows that there was
weakness in the left arm as well. Reliance is placed on the finding of
the appellate Medical Board, which contends that in view of two
disabilities, the respondent would not be entitled to employment as
claimed by him.
8. The submissions made before us today, were also made before the
learned Single Judge. Para 8 and 9 of the judgment dated 11.10.2017,
rendered by the Single Judge, read as under:
L.P.A.295/2018 Page 2 of 5
"8. In other words, it is his stand that the respondent's disability is
with regard to both (OL) and (OA) is contrary to the declaration
given by the Competent Authority under the Disabilities Act. He
would rely on the judgment of this Court in case of Dr. Raman
Khanna vs. University of Delhi & Ors. W.P. (C) No.2670/2003,
decided on August 11, 2003, to contend that, the petitioner has no
alternative but to accept, the Disability certificate so issued, by the
Competent Authority. He refers to Para 14, of the judgment wherein
Court has concluded as under:
"14. On a conjoint reading of Section 58 of the Disabilities Act
and Rule 4 of the Disability Rules, it will be crystal clear that
individual Universities, Institutions or Establishments have no
alternative but to accept a certificate issued by the Medical
Boards constituted by the Central or State Governments, as the
case may be. Any other interpretation would render Rule 4
totally otiose. Since this Rule has not been challenged it must
be given effect to. Even though there may be some substance
in the Universities stand that it is quite possible that some
Medical Board may be lenient in the manner and extent of
their certification when compared with others, in the cases
before me all the candidates are from Delhi. The following
Order has palpably been issued in the exercise of the power
contained in Rule 4.
''Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Health
and Family Welfare Department) Level 9, Wing-A, Delhi
Secretariat, New Delhi-110002
No.F.27/8/93-HandFW/ Dated : 8.8.2002
ORDER
In furtherance of order of even no. dated 09.03.2000 the
Medical Superintendents of the following 9 hospitals along
with jurisdiction for issue of medical disability certificates are
hereby authorized to co-opt an Orthopedic surgeon, if
available in the hospital or else from the nearby major hospital
for specific cases for issuance of disability certificates:-
1. Lok Nayak Hospital
2. Aruna Asaf Ali Government Hospital
3. Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital
4. Guru Gobind Singh Government Hospital
5. Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital
6. Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital
7. Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital
8. Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital
9. Rao Tula Ram Memorial Hospital This issues with the
approval of Pr. Secretary (H and FW), GNCTD.
sd/-
(N.C. Ray) Addl. Secretary (H and FW )''
9. Having noted the aforesaid conclusion of this Court, I agree with
the submission made by Mr. Rajan Mani that the petitioner neither
can challenge nor nullify the Certificate issued by the Competent
Authority under the Disabilities Act, wherein it has been concluded
that the petitioner has disability to the extent of 40% of lower limb,
(left leg) only and not one arm and one leg as is the stand of the
petitioner which is in violation of the provisions of the Disability
Act and the Rules."
9. We are informed that the decision rendered in the case of Dr. Raman
Khanna vs. University of Delhi & Ors. W.P. (C) No.2670/2003 dated
11.08.2003, has attained finality.
10. Having regard to the submission made and taking into consideration the
decision rendered in the case of Dr. Raman Khanna (supra), we find
no infirmity in the order dated 11.10.2017 passed by the learned Single
Judge. Once the candidate has produced the certificate of disability
from the competent authority under the Disabilities Act wherein it has
been concluded that the respondent has disability to the extent of 40%
of lower limb (left leg only), we find no merit in this appeal. The same
is, accordingly, dismissed. Order of the Commissioner dated
31.12.2014 shall be complied with.
C.M.21656/2018 (stay)
11. The application stands disposed of, in view of the order passed in the
appeal.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.
AUGUST 10, 2018/rb
