Karnataka High Court
Sri Mahesh Kumar K J vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 October, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
WRIT PETITION NO. 3475 OF 2022 (S-KSAT)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 12299 OF 2022 (S-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO. 10707 OF 2023 (S-RES)
IN WRIT PETITION NO.3475 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
1 . SRI. MAHESH KUMAR K.J.
S/O LATE JAYARAMAIAH K.
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT. NO.239, "KANASU" NILAYA
6TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN
BUDDHA JYOTHI LAYOUT
CHIKKABIDARAKALLU
BENGALURU-560 073
2 . SRI LOKESH D.
S/O DODDE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT. CHOLANAHALLI VILLAGE
BILIKERE HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT-571 103
3 . SRI. SHIVAKUMAR K.R.
S/O LATE K.S. RANGAPPAA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
RESIDING AT KURIHALLI
BADAVANAHALLI POST
DODDERI HOBLI
MADHUGIRI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 112
-
2
4 . SRI. K.C. NAGARAJA
S/O CHIKKANNA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
RESIDING AT KURIHALLI
BADAVANAHALLI POST
DODDERI HOBLI
MADHUGIRI TALUK
TUMKUKRU DISTRICT-572 112
5 . SRI. C. GANESHA
S/O CHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
NO.83/1, 1ST MAIN
13TH CROSS
AMRUTHESHWARA NAGAR
BELAVADI, ILAVALA HOBLI
MYSURU TQ & DISTRICT-570 018
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. P.P. HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W.
SMT. A.L. SARITHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
REPRESENTED BY THE
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001
2 . THE COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF SURVEY,
SETTLEMENT AND LAND RECORDS
K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001
3 . SRI. GIRISH D.L.
S/O LATE D.N. LAKSHMAN RAO
DODDAMALURU (POST)
MADHUGIRI (TALUK)
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 127
4 . SRI. VIRUPAKSHA H.B.
S/O BASAVANNA
-
3
HAGALAVADI-572 222
GUBBI TALUK
TUMAKURU-563 136
5 . SRI. K.C. NAGARAJU
S/O CHANDRAPPA
REDDAHALLI VILLAGE
BELEGERE POST
CHANNAGIRI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 231
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SMT. JYNA KOTHARI, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W.
SRI. NAVEENCHANDRA V., ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT QUASHING THE
ORDER DATED 12.11.2021 IN As.No.92 TO 96/2021 PASSED BY
THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, AT
BENGALURU, A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B
AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW As.No.92 TO 96/2021 FILED BY THE
PETITIONERS AS PRAYED FOR AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 12299 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. MAHESH KUMAR K.J.
S/O LATE JAYARAMAIAH K.
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.239
"KANASU" NILAYA, 6TH CORSS
1ST MAIN, BUDDHA JYOTHI LAYOUT
CHIKKABIDARAKALLU
BENGALURU-560 073
2. SRI. LOKESH D.
S/O DODDE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
RESIDING AT CHOLANAHALLI VILLAGE
BILIKERE HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT-571 103
-
4
3. SRI. SHIVAKUMAR K.R.
S/O LATE K.S. RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
RESIDING AT KURIHALLI
BADAVANAHALLI POST
DODDERI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 112
4. SRI. C. GANESHA
S/O CHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
NO.83/1, 1ST MAIN, 13TH CROSS
AMRUTHESHWARA NAGAR
BELAVADI, ILAVALA HOBLI
MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-570 018
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. P.P HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W.
SMT. A.L. SARITHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001
2. THE COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF SURVEY,
SETTLEMENT AND LAND RECORDS
K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001
3. THE STATE COMMISSIONER OF PERSONS
WITH DISABILITIES
NO.55, 2ND FLOOR
ABHAYA SANKEERNA
KARNATAKA SLUM DEVELOPMENT
BOARD BUILDING
RISELDAR ROAD, SHESHADRIPURAM
BENGALURU-560 020
4. SRI. GIRISH D.L.
S/O LATE D.N. LAKSHMAN RAO
-
5
DODDAMALURU (POST)
MADHUGIRI TALUK
TUMAKURU-572 127
5. SRI. M. LOKESH REDDY
BITUVARAHALLI VILLAGE
MALLANAYAKANAHALLI POST
MULABAGILU TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 136
6. SRI. VIRUPAKSHA H.B.
S/O BASAVANNA
HAGALAVADI-572 222
GUBBI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT
7. SRI. K.C. NAGARAJU
S/O CHANDRAPPA
REDDAHALLI VILLAGE
BELAGERE POST
CHANNAGIRI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT -577 231
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
R3 SERVED;
SMT. JYNA KOTHARI, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W.
SRI. ROHAN KOTHARI, ADVOCATE FOR R4, R6 & R7;
R5 - V/O DATED 04.08.2023 NOTICE D/W)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.01.2019, THE THIRD
RESPONDENT-THE STATE COMMISSIONER FOR DISABILITIES, A
COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.10707 OF 2023:
BETWEEN:
1 . D.L. GIRISHA
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O LATE D.N. LAKSHMAN RAO
-
6
RESIDING AT DODDAMALURU POST
MADHUGIRI TALUK
TUMAKURU-572 127
2 . VIRUPAKSHA H.B.
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O BASAVANNA
RESIDING AT HAGALAWADI POST
NEAR BAKKAPATTANA ROAD
GUBBI TALUK
TUMAKURU-572 222
3 . NAGARAJA K.C.
S/O CHANDRAPPA
AGED 43 YEARS
RESIDING AT RADDIHALLI VILLAGE
BALALAGERE POST
CHANNAGIRI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT 577 231
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. JYNA KOTHARI, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI. NAVEENCHANDRA V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF LAND SURVEY
SETTLEMENT AND LAND RECORDS
REVENUE BUILDING, K.R. CIRCLE
NUNEGUNDLAPALLI
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
2. THE CHAIR PERSON
RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE AND COMMISSIONER
LAND SURVEY SETTLEMENT AND LAND RECORDS
REVENUE BUILDING, K.R. CIRCLE
NUNEGUNDLAPALLI
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
-
7
3. THE COMMISSIONER
LAND SURVEY SETTLEMENT AND LAND RECORDS
REVENUE BUILDING
K.R. CIRCLE
NUNEGUNDLAPALLI
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
4. STATE COMMISSIONER FOR DISABILITIES
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR DISABILITIES
KARNATAKA SLUM DEVELOPMENT BOARD BUILDING
NO.55, ABHAYA SANKEERNA
2ND FLOOR
RISALDAE STREET (PLATFORM ROAD)
SHESHADRIPURAM
BENGALURU-560 020
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR RESPONDENTS)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO (a) ISSUE A WRIT,
ORDER(S), DIRECTIONS, WRIT(S) IN THE NATURE OF
MANDAMUS, DIRECTING RESPONDENT Nos.1 AND 2 TO
IMPLEMENT THE ORDER DATED 25.01.2019 IN CASE
No.33/2017-18/1091 (ANNEXURE-J) AND LETTER DATED
29.12.2021 BEARING No.SAM/DPRA/SEC62/33/2017-18
(ANNEXURE-S) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT No.4 STATE
COMMISSIONER FOR DISABILITIES AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 13.09.2024 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
-
8
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
These writ petitions are filed challenging the impugned
order dated 12.11.2021 in Applications No.92-96/2021,
passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal,
Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal" for short),
order dated 25.01.2019 in Case No.33/2017-18/1091 and
Letter dated 29.12.2021 bearing
No.SAM/DPRA/SEC62/33/2017-18 passed by the third
respondent-the State Commissioner for persons with
disabilities.
2. We have heard Shri. P.P. Hegde, learned Senior
Counsel as instructed by Smt. A.L.Saritha, learned counsel
for the petitioners in W.P.No.3475/2022 and
W.P.No.12299/2022, Smt. Jyna Kothari, learned Senior
Counsel as instructed by Shri. Naveenchandra V, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.10707/2023.
Smt. Jyna Kothari, learned Senior Counsel as instructed by
Shri. Naveenchandra V, learned counsel appearing for
respondents No.3 to 5 in W.P.No.3475/2022, Smt. Jyna
-
Kothari, learned Senior Counsel as instructed by Shri. Rohan
Kothari, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.4, 6
and 7 in W.P.No.12299/2022 and Shri. Vikas Rojipura,
learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the
official respondents No.1 and 2 in W.P.No.3475/2022 and
W.P.No.12299/2022 and for all the official respondents in
W.P.No.10707/2022.
3. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioners that pursuant to the
employment notification dated 01.12.2014 issued by the
respondents for the post of Surveyor, the petitioners
responded and applied under Physically Handicapped Quota
and were selected in the final selection list under Locomotor
Disability. The petitioners were directed to appear before the
Medical Board to ascertain the percentage of their disability
and the Medical Board issued A8 to A11 certificate dated
31.08.2016 to all the petitioners certifying their permanent
disability over 40%.
4. It is further submitted that the petitioners were
duly selected and issued with appointment orders and
-
started working as such, they also passed required
examination and departmental examinations. On complaints
raised by some third parties that the petitioners' Disability
Certificates were erroneous, they were issued Official
Memorandum dated 29.06.2017 to appear for a re-
examination by the Medical Board, General Hospital,
Jayanagar, Bengaluru.
5. The Medical Board, issued Medical Certificates
dated 25.07.2017, stating that the petitioners' disability is
far less than 40%, which is the benchmark for appointment
under the quota. Thereafter, some of the candidates
complained to the Commissioner of Disabilities that the
second report was incorrect and the matter was again
referred to the Director of Health and Family Welfare, who
constituted a three member team of specialists at the
Victoria Hospital to verify the percentage of disability. In
the said examination conducted at the Victoria Hospital also,
the degree of disability was found to be below 40%.
Thereafter, show-cause notices dated 06.07.2018, were
issued to the petitioners, to which they submitted their
-
replies. The second respondent, without considering the
replies submitted by the petitioners, passed an order dated
03.01.2019, cancelling the selection and appointment of the
petitioners.
6. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners
filed Applications No.596-598/2019 connected with
Application No.333/2019 and Application No.358/2019
challenging the above order dated 03.01.2019 before the
Tribunal. The Tribunal considered the rival contentions of the
parties and allowed the said applications quashing the
impugned order dated 03.01.2019 and further directed to
reinstate the applicants into service within a period of 90
days. However, liberty was reserved to the first and second
respondent to get the enquiry done from the State
Commissioner for Disability and decide the matters within an
outer limit of 60 days. Thereafter, orders were passed on
04.08.2020 and 13.08.2020, without awaiting the result of
the enquiry and without any further examination holding
that the petitioners' certificates were false and that they are
not eligible to continue in service. The said orders were
-
challenged before the Tribunal. However, the applications
filed by the petitioners were dismissed by the Tribunal.
7. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners were
appointed after undergoing due selection process and on the
basis of valid disability certificates possessed by them which
were not under challenge. It is submitted that without the
certificates issued to the petitioners being invalidated on the
basis of an appeal under Section 59 of the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities Act, 2016, there was no occasion for the
respondents to rely on any further examination. They
contend that the order of the Tribunal is perverse and
arbitrary, failing to properly investigate the genuineness of
the medical certificates or summon relevant doctors for
inquiry.
8. It is further contended that the Tribunal ignored
the procedural irregularities and statutory protections under
Rule 20 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General
Recruitment) Rules, 1977, which mandate proper
departmental inquiries before taking any action against
-
employees on grounds of fraud or misrepresentation. It is
further contended that the sole reliance placed by the
Tribunal on the report of the State Commissioner for
Disability was clearly erroneous since the petitioners were
not put on notice or heard before such report was
generated. It is contended that the reports state that the
Medical Board, K.C. General Hospital did not follow disability
assessment guidelines which cannot be held against the
petitioners as they had no role in obtaining fraudulent
certificates. It is also contended that the petitioners had
already completed more than two years of service and had
undergone multiple medical re-examinations during this
period and if there were any discrepancies in the medical
reports, the same should have been addressed earlier and
that they should not be penalized after having faithfully
served in their posts. Additionally, the Commissioner for
Health and Family Welfare had no jurisdiction to constitute
the Medical Board that issued the conflicting report, further
invalidating the Tribunal's reliance on that report.
-
9. In support of his contentions, he has relied on the
following judgments:-
• State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Ravindra
Kumar Sharma and others reported in (2016) 4
SCC 791;
• Kumari Madhuri Patil and others v. Additional
Commissioner, Tribal Development and others
reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241;
• R. Viswanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala and
others reported in (2004) 2 SCC 105;
• Chairman and Managing Director, FCI and Ors.
v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and others reported
in (2017) 8 SCC 670; and
• Srutidhar Nayak v. State of Odisha and others
in W.P.(C) No.1621 of 2021 [Odisha High
Court].
10. The learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for the respondents-State contends that the writ
petitions filed by the petitioners are not maintainable either
in law or on facts and are liable to be dismissed under Rule
21 of the Karnataka High Court Writ Proceedings Rules. It is
contended that the petitioners are challenging the
cancellation of their appointments as surveyors and not
-
orders of termination from service which stand on a different
footing. It is submitted that there were complaints that
some candidates had submitted false medical certificates to
claim reservation under the Physically Handicapped
category. All the candidates were subjected to a re-
examination by a Medical Board constituted at the Jayanagar
General Hospital and later, at the Victoria Hospital and it
was revealed that the petitioners' disabilities were below
threshold of 40% making them ineligible for the
appointment.
11. It is further contended that show-cause notices
were issued to the petitioners and after considering their
responses and the medical reports, their appointments were
cancelled by an order dated 03.01.2019. The petitioners
approached the Tribunal against the orders. The Tribunal
directed the reinstatement of the petitioners into service
within 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the
order and further reserved liberty to first and second
respondents to get the inquiries done by the State
Commissioner for Disabilities regarding the medical reports.
-
However, within 90 days as provided, the enquiry was
completed and the orders were passed. It is submitted that
it was after due notice to the petitioners and after sending
them to medical examination by a duly constituted Medical
Board that the finding was entered that the petitioners do
not have the bench mark disability as required for availing
the reservation. It is submitted that such being the position,
the technical contentions raised by the petitioners cannot
help them.
12. It is further contended that the inquiry by the
State Commissioner upheld the findings that the petitioners
had submitted false certificates leading to issuance of a
speaking order that confirmed the cancellation of their
appointments based on the reports and complaint with the
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of
Rights, and Full Participation) Rules of 1996. It is also
contended that the petitioners have not provided any valid
ground for quashing the cancellation orders.
13. The learned counsel appearing for the private
respondents submits that the private respondents are also
-
persons with disabilities who had submitted applications
pursuant to the notification dated 01.12.2014, their names
were included in the Additional waiting list for the post of
Lands Surveyor (Physically Handicapped).
14. Out of 41 candidates who were included in the
main list, many had submitted fake disability certificates on
the basis of the complaints raised in this behalf. A fresh
medical examination was conducted in which 08 of the
selected candidates were found to have disability less than
40%, show-cause notices were issued to them and further
examination was conducted at the Victoria Hospital where
again 5 of the candidates were found to have disability less
than 40% and 2 candidates did not participate in the
medical examination. Five candidates, who were found to
have less than 40% disability were removed from service by
cancelling their appointments on 03.01.2019. In the
meanwhile, one of the private respondents had approached
the State Commissioner for disabilities and after considering
the contentions, the fourth respondent had directed the
persons with fake disability certificates to be dismissed and
-
the private respondents who were included in the waiting list
to be appointed to the post of Land Surveyors.
15. Though the private respondents represented
before the respondents and requested compliance of the
orders of the fourth respondent nothing further was done. In
the meanwhile, the five candidates who were directed to be
removed had approached the Tribunal against the order
dated 03.01.2019 and the Tribunal passed orders quashing
the said order and directed reinstatement within 90 days on
the ground that the second respondent did not follow
necessary procedure. The third respondent again issued a
speaking order on 21.10.2020 dismissing the candidates
who were found ineligible by the Medical Board. Aggrieved
thereby, the dismissed candidates again approached the
Tribunal filing applications No.92-96/2021, which were
dismissed. It is contended that though the removal from
service of the petitioners in the connected writ petition was
found to be legal and valid, the private respondents who
were included in the Additional list had not been appointed.
-
They therefore seek appointment as against the posts
vacated by the persons removed from service.
16. We have heard the detailed argument advanced
by all the counsel appearing in the matters. We have also
given our anxious consideration to the pleadings and the
documents placed on record. The decisions which were
referred to in the order of the Tribunal were also perused.
They are the following:-
• State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Ravindra
Kumar and others reported in (2016) 4 SCC 791;
• R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala and
others reported in (2004) 2 SCC 105; and
• CMD, FCI and others v. Jagadish Balaram
Bahira in CA No.8928/2015 dated 06.07.2017.
17. The petitioners in W.P.No.3475/2022 had
produced disability certificates showing benchmark disability
of more than 40%. There were complaints raised with
regard to the disability certificates produced by them. The
Medical Board was thereafter constituted and after
examining the candidates, the Medical Board reported vide
its report dated 25.07.2017 that the percentage of disability
-
suffered was 10% in case of three of the applicants and
ranging from 21% to 28% in case of others. It is pertinent
to note that the degree of disability required for availing the
benefit of reservation under the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016, is 40%. The candidates were
thereafter put on notice and were required to undergo a
further medical examination. The petitioners who underwent
the examination were found not to have the benchmark
disabilities, which would entitle them to appointment in the
quota set apart for persons with disabilities. It was after
issuance of a show-cause notice by the second respondent
as to why the appointment order dated 22.10.2016 should
not be cancelled and after considering the reply submitted
by them that the order was passed.
18. Though the order initially passed was set aside by
the Tribunal and the issue of disability was directed to be
considered, the second respondent again considered the
materials on record and passed an order of removal from
service. In the present challenge against the same, the
Tribunal considered the contentions advanced and found
-
that the instant case was one where the Appointing
Authority had found that the applicants had secured
appointment to Government service based on a false claim
of Benchmark Physical Disability. It was further found that
two further medical examinations were conducted, where it
was found that the petitioners did not have the 40%
Benchmark Disability which would entitle them to an
appointment in the quota kept apart for persons with
disabilities. It was in the above circumstances that the
Tribunal found that the orders of removal did not warrant
interference.
19. The contentions of the petitioners as well as the
legal arguments raised by them were specifically considered
by the Tribunal. The earlier orders of the Tribunal have also
been specifically referred and it was found that in the facts
and circumstances of the instant case, the non-consideration
of the directions of the Tribunal in the earlier round of
litigation in Applications No.596 to 598/2019 connected with
Application No.333 and Application No.358/2019 did not
vitiate the order of cancellation which was one passed after
-
issuance of due show cause notice and after considering the
contentions advanced.
20. Having considered the legal contentions advanced
on either side, we notice that disability of 40% or above is
the sine qua non for availing the benefit of reservation under
the quota set apart for persons with disabilities. A person,
who does not have the Benchmark Disability would not be
entitled for appointment in terms of the Act and would thus
be usurping a post which is reserved for persons with such
disabilities. Though the learned senior counsel appearing for
the petitioners contends that the instant case is not the one
of fraudulent disability certificates and that the only
allegation is that the disability certificates were not properly
issued, we are of the opinion that such contentions cannot
be urged in a case where repeated medical examinations
have shown that the petitioners do not have the 40%
disability which is required to avail the benefits of
reservation. Though the learned senior counsel appearing
for the petitioners submits that there can be no sanctity
attached to the examination conducted by the Medical
-
Boards, we cannot accept the said contention. It is clearly
on the basis of complaints raised as to the veracity of the
disability certificates produced by the petitioners that they
were put on notice and subjected to examination by a
Medical Board at the Jayanagar Hospital. The examination
clearly showed disability for less than 40%. On the
petitioners' complaint against the said examination, a
further examination was conducted at the Victoria Hospital.
Five of the petitioners, who participated, were again found
to have disability of less than 40%. It is considering these
aspects that the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that
the petitioners are not entitled to succeed in the application.
21. After considering the admitted factual matters,
the Tribunal held that in the instant case, the
misrepresentation as to the degree of physical disability
itself amounted to fraud and a person who obtains
employment on the basis of a disability certificate which is
subsequently found to be erroneous cannot contend that he
is entitled to continue in service. It is pertinent to note that
it is not a case of allegation of fraudulently obtaining a
-
certificate which is urged against the petitioners, but the fact
that without the benchmark disability, they were ineligible
for appointment against the post reserved for persons with
disabilities.
22. Having considered the contentions advanced and
the pleadings on record, we find that all the contentions
raised have been considered in detail by the Tribunal. We
find no grounds to interfere with the categoric findings of the
Tribunal which are supported with clear reasoning.
23. In the above view of the matter,
W.P.No.3475/2022 and W.P.No.12299/2022 fail and the
same are accordingly, dismissed.
W.P.No.10707/2023 is disposed of with a direction to
the respondents to consider the representations preferred by
the petitioners therein and to take necessary action for
appointment from the additional list as required by law,
taking note of the fact that the appointments earlier made
from the list against vacancies set apart for persons with
disabilities stand cancelled. Necessary orders shall be passed
-
on the representation within two months from the date of
receipt of a copy of the judgment.
Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed.
There will be no orders as to costs.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
cp*
