Gauhati High Court
Ramesh Das vs The State Of Assam And 7 Ors on 22 September, 2025
Author: Kalyan Rai Surana
Bench: Kalyan Rai Surana
Page No.# 1/13
GAHC010157712024
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Review.Pet./139/2024
RAMESH DAS
S/O- LT. BHISHMA DAS, R/O- VILL- 1 NO. NARUA, POST OFFICE- NARUA,
POLICE STATION- MUKALMUA, DISTRICT- NALBARI ASSAM, PIN- 781138
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
ASSAM, DISPUR, JANATA BHAWAN, GUWAHATI-6
2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
JANATA BHAWAN
GUWAHATI-6
3:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT
DISPUR
JANATA BHAWAN
GUWAHATI-6
4:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
JANATA BHAWAN
GUWAHATI-6
5:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION
ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI-19
Page No.# 2/13
6:THE STATE LEVEL RECRUITMENT COMMISSION FOR CLASS-IV POSTS
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN/SECRETARY
ASSAM ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF COLLEGE
JAWAHARNAGAR
KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI-22
7:THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES
NALBARI
DISTRICT- NALBARI
ASSAM- 781138
8:THE MEDICAL BOARD
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL -CUM- CHIEF SUPERINTENDANT
GAUHATI MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL
GUWAHATI-32
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S K ROY, S MEDHI,MRS. M M ROY
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, SEC. EDU.,SC, HEALTH AND F W,SC, SOCIAL
JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT,SC, SLRC
Linked Case : Review.Pet./148/2024
MUKUL BORA
S/O- LT. BOGAI RAM BORA
R/O- VILLAGE- MORONGIAL
POST OFFICE- CHOTAHAIBOR
POLICE STATION- SADAR
DISTRICT- NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN- 782003.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
ASSAM
DISPUR
JANATA BHAWAN
Page No.# 3/13
GUWAHATI-6.
2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
JANATA BHAWAN
GUWAHATI-6.
3:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT
DISPUR
JANATA BHAWAN
GUWAHATI-6.
4:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
JANATA BHAWAN
GUWAHATI-6.
5:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION
ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI-19.
6:THE STATE LEVEL RECRUITMENT COMMISSION FOR CLASS-IV POSTS
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN/ SECRETARY
ASSAM ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF COLLEGE
JAWAHARNAGAR
KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI-22.
7:THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES
NAGAON
DIST.- NAGAON
ASSAM- 782001.
8:THE MEDICAL BOARD
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL-CUM- CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT
GAUHATI MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL
GUWAHATI-32
ASSAM.
------------
Page No.# 4/13
Advocate for : MR. S K ROY
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
ORDER
Date : 22-09-2025
Heard Mr. S.K. Roy, learned counsel for the Review petitioner as well
as Mr. V. Choudhury, learned standing counsel for the SLRC, Mr. D. Upamanya,
learned standing counsel for the Health Department, Mr. U. Sarma, learned
standing counsel for the Director of Secondary Education, Ms. R.B. Bora, learned
Govt. Advocate appearing for the State's respondents and Ms. Tinlung, learned
counsel on behalf of Mr. R.M. Das, learned standing counsel for the Principal
Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Department of Social Justice and
Empowerment.
2. This petition for review is directed against the order dated
12.06.2024, passed by this Court in WP(C) 2993/2024.
3. In brief the case of the petitioner is that he is suffering from
permanent disability of "low vision", which has been assessed at 40% as per the
Disability Certificate issued by the Joint Director of Health Services, Nagaon. The
petitioner had participated in the recruitment process initiated vide
advertisement dated 25.03.2022, issued by the Secretary, State Level
Recruitment Commission for Class-IV posts (SLRC for short).
4. It would suffice to mention that the petitioner had cleared the
written examination that was held on 21.08.2022 and declared qualified for the
Page No.# 5/13
next level of test, in which the petitioner participated and declared qualified as
per the provisional result, published by the SLRC on 04.05.2023. In the said
provisional result, the SLRC had mentioned that in case of PwBD category,
appointment shall be confirmed after medical examination and clearance receipt
from the Medical Board. It would suffice to mention that the medical re-
verification result, the name of the petitioner did not appear and accordingly the
petitioner had initially filed a writ petition and this Court by order dated
18.12.2023, disposed of WP(C) 7204/2023 by directing the respondent
authorities to communicate the individual disability status to the petitioner in
respect of the post he had applied for. It would also suffice to mention that in
the Medical Board's comment sheet, his disability status was assessed by the
Gauhati Medical College and Hospital (GMCH) to the extent of 30% (thirty
percent) in the category of "blind and low vision", which fell below the
prescribed Benchmark Disability. Thereafter the petitioner had approached the
Court praying for issuance of a writ for setting aside and/or quashing of the
medical report/ opinion given by the Medical Board of GMCH in the re-
assessment exercise for benchmark disability, being void ab-initio and also with
a prayer to set aside and quash the office memorandum dated 21.05.2022, so
far as it relates to verification/ re-verification or assessment/re-assessment of
disability of a person with disability under Clause-5 of the said OM and the
notification dated 13.09.2023, with further prayer to direct the respondent
authorities to cancel/ re-call/ re-seen or otherwise forebear from giving effect to
the impugned medical report/ opinion, as well as for directing the respondent
authorities to act upon the recommendation made by the SLRC and upon the
petitioner to his selected/ recommended Class-IV post.
5. On the strength of the materials available on record and upon
Page No.# 6/13
hearing the petitioner and the counsel for the appearing respondents, this Court
by an order dated 12.06.2024, relying upon the case of State of Uttar Pradesh
& Ors. v Ravindra Kumar Sarma & Ors., (2016) 4 SCC 791 , held that the
petitioner has not been able to make out a case to sustain the challenge to the
legality of the said OM dated 21.05.2022 and accordingly, the said OM was said
to be valid. As the petitioner was not found to be suffering from benchmark
disability on re-verification and accordingly, it was held that if the petitioner is
selected and appointed in a Grade-IV post on the strength of a medical
certificate showing him to be suffering from benchmark disability, then the
petitioner would be infringing from the right of candidate, who upon medical re-
verification is found to be suffering from benchmark disability which, in the
opinion of the Court would be more unjust and iniquitous to persons actually
found on medical re-verification to be suffering from benchmark disability.
6. On the reasons morefully assigned in the said order dated
12.06.2024, the Court had held that the writ petition fails and the matter was
dismissed at the motion stage without issuance of notice upon the respondents.
7. It is made clear that as the said order dated 12.06.2024, passed
in WP(C) 2993/2024, elaborately contains the discussions, reasons and the
decisions of the Court, the same is not required to be reiterated in this order.
8. It may be mentioned that aggrieved by the said order dated
12.06.2024, passed in WP(C) 2993/2024, the petitioner had preferred a writ
appeal which was registered as WA 239/2024. However, the petitioner had
prayed for withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to file a review application.
The said prayer was allowed by order dated 31.07.2024. Accordingly, the
present review petition has been filed.
Page No.# 7/13
9. The grounds on which the review is preferred runs into 15
(fifteen) pages and therefore, a brief summarization of the grounds are as
follows:
i. That order under review would lead to miscarriage of
justice;
ii. As the petitioner was holding a disability certificate which
has attained finality under the provisions of Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016 [RPwD Act, 2016 in short], there was no
requirement of justification to subject the petitioner to further scrutiny
by the Medical Board, which is projected to be a discriminatory act on
part of the State Govt., further projecting that the petitioner had not
challenged the constitution of the Medical Board as they have made an
alternative prayer to challenge Clause-5 of the O.M. dated 21.05.2022,
being violative of RPwD Act, which was not considered in the
impugned order dated 12.06.2024 by this Court;
iii. By referring to Clause 2.1 of the O.M. dated 21.05.2022,
and the provisions of sections 33 and 34 of the RPwD Act and Rule
11(1) of the RPwD Rules, it is projected that the persons with
disabilities are required to be considered horizontally and vacancies for
persons with benchmark disability are required to be maintained as
separate class which required the order dated 12.06.2024 to be
reviewed;
iv. That in category of posts, which are identified for the first
PwBDs, person having benchmark disability cannot be denied right to
compete for appointment in the direct recruitment process and
accordingly, it is projected that a person with benchmark disability can
Page No.# 8/13
be appointed by direct recruitment against post not specifically
reserved for the PwBD category, which is projected to be contrary to
Clause 4.2 of the OM dated 21.05.2022, which provides that the PwBD
can be selected without relaxed standard along with other candidate
would not be adjusted against the reserved share of post;
v. It has been stated that the order dated 12.06.2024 is
liable to be reviewed, in view of non-consideration of section 34 of the
RPwD Act, requiring that when there are no persons with PwBD
available for the post and fill up the vacancies with persons other than
disability. Accordingly, it is submitted that the said aspect was not
considered by the Court;
vi. That the Court did not take into consideration the change
of definition of persons with disability as defined in the present RPwD
Act compared to the definition available under the Persons with
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 1995;
vii. That in view of definition of discrimination under the
RPwD Act, as the petitioner was a person with disability, he was
entitled to be appointed in the employment in Govt. establishment in
terms of the provision of the RPwD Act and also the relaxed standard
provided under the Clause 11(4) of the OM dated 21.05.2022 which
was not considered;
viii. That the ratio laid down in the case of State of Uttar
Pradesh (supra) was not applicable in the present case, as the said
certificate was issued only upon satisfaction with regard to the
percentage of disability of the petitioner and in this connection the
Page No.# 9/13
learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to various definitions as
provided under the RPwD Act, 2016 and accordingly, it is projected
that said aspect of the matter was not considered by the Court;
ix. As the petitioner has been selected in the recruitment process, it
was incumbent on the part of the State to issue an appointment order
in favour of the petitioner and it is projected that until and unless the
claim of the petitioner for appointment in terms of the advertisement is
submitted before this Court, the vacancy cannot be carried forward
and cannot be filled up.
10. In support of his submissions the learned counsel for the
petitioner has cited the case of Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial
Services, Suo Motu W.P.(C) 2/2024, decided by the Supreme Court of India on
03.03.2025 and reported in 2025 INSC 300 as well as case of Rekha Sarma v
The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 5051/2023 , decided
on 21.08.2024 and reported in 2024 INSC 615.
11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the SLRC has submitted that
the requirement of section 34 of the RPwD Act, the reservation is envisaged for
persons with benchmark disabilities and that the prescribed benchmark disability
in the present case is 40%. Accordingly, it has been submitted that as on re-
verification the petitioner was not found to have the benchmark disability, the
order under review does not suffer from any illegality. The learned counsel for
the other respondents have adopted the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the SLRC.
12. Considered the submissions and the two cases cited by the
learned counsel for the petitioner. Also considered the materials available in the
Page No.# 10/13
record of the writ petition and this review petition.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made elaborate
submissions on the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,
2016 and Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017. Referring to the
scheme of the said Act and Rules, it was submitted that as the petitioner was
selected, he must be offered appointment. He had submitted that the State
respondents could only have made medical assessment of the petitioner to see
where he could be assigned duties. It was submitted that the O.M. issued by
the Govt. of Assam was contrary to the mandate of the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016 and Rules framed thereunder.
14. At the outset, it may be stated that the learned counsel for the
petitioner had cited the case of Rekha Sharma (supra). However, when the
Court had asked the learned counsel for the petitioner to read paragraph 11 of
the said judgment and make his submissions thereon, the learned counsel for
the petitioner had replied that the said paragraph was overruled by the Supreme
Court of India in the subsequently decided case of In Re: Recruitment of
Visually Impaired in Judicial Services, 2025 INSC 300: (2025) 4 SCR 222 . On
being asked to refer to the relevant paragraph where paragraph-11 of the case
of Rekha Sharma (supra) was overruled, the learned counsel for the petitioner
said that it is implied in view of observations made in the later judgment. Thus,
an apparent misleading submission has been made by the learned counsel for
the petitioner, which is strongly deprecated. Nonetheless, the learned counsel
for the petitioner did not make any submissions as to how and in what manner,
the decision rendered in the two cases cited by him would constitute a good
ground for the Court to review the order dated 12.06.2024, passed in W.P.(C)
Page No.# 11/13
2993/2024.
15. Secondly, as the learned counsel for the petitioner had made
such strenuous and lengthy submissions of more than about 1 (one) hour, he
was asked to make his pin-pointed submissions as to where is the error
apparent on the face of record. On the said query, the learned counsel for the
petitioner had repeated and reiterated his submissions on Section 34 of the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and Rule 11 of the Rules framed
thereunder. It was submitted that when the writ petition was decided, he could
not place the judgments now cited by him, which is again an attempt to mislead
the Court because the case of Rekha Sharma (supra) was decided on
21.08.2024, and the case of In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial
Services (supra) was decided on 03.03.2025 and therefore, both the said cases
could not have been cited because the writ petition of the petitioner was
decided on 12.06.2024. In other words, the learned counsel for the petitioner
had made no attempt to show under which law a subsequently rendered
judgment can become the basis of reviewing order passed prior to
pronouncement of those two cited judgments.
16. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner had referred to the
grounds of review, as mentioned in the review petition, but made no attempt to
demonstrate existence of any grounds for the Court to exercise review
jurisdiction. The entire effort of the learned counsel for the petitioner was to re-
argue the entire matter, as if this review application is an appeal in disguise.
Thus, the Court is inclined to hold that none of the grounds mentioned in this
review petition are good grounds for exercising review jurisdiction, but the said
grounds only suggests that the decision of the Court pronounced on
Page No.# 12/13
12.06.2024, was an erroneous decision.
17. In other words, all the grounds for review, except ground no. (i)
contain argumentative materials. From the nature of statements made in the
grounds of review, the one and only impression that the learned counsel for the
petitioner has been able to convey is that the order dated 12.06.2024, is grossly
erroneous, and it was passed without correctly appreciating the provisions of
Sections 2 and 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and Rule
11(4) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rule, 2017.
18. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not make any effort to
show which part of the order dated 12.06.2024, is vitiated due to perversity,
arising out of non-consideration of relevant Act, Rules or Notifications; non-
consideration of statements made in the writ petition; non consideration of any
document; or reliance on extraneous materials; or any other legal grounds on
which review can be entertained. It is also not the case of the petitioner that
despite due diligence, some relevant material could not be produced in course
of the writ proceedings.
19. Thus, as referred to hereinbefore, no attempt was made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner to demonstrate the existence of any error
apparent on the face of the record, which had vitiated the order dated
12.06.2024.
20. It is trite law that an error apparent is something which can be
ascertained merely by looking at the record and does not require long drawn
reasoning. In other words, the error must strike clearly on the face of the
record. If one requires any authority on the point, the judgments passed by the
Supreme Court of India in the case of (i) Meera Bhanja v. Nirmal Kumari
Page No.# 13/13
Choudhury, (1995) 1 SCC 170, and (ii) Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v.
Mallikarjun Bhavanappu Tirumale, AIR 1960 SC 137, , may be referred to. In the
case of Lily Thomas v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 1650 , the Supreme Court of
India had held that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a
mistake and not to substitute a view already taken.
21. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show how the
impugned order is vitiated by any error apparent on the face of the record.
Therefore, this review petition is found to be de hors any merit and thus, this
review petition deserves to be and is accordingly, dismissed.
22. The parties are left to bear their own cost.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
