Orissa High Court

Janakalyan Majhi vs Secretary To Govt. Of Odisha on 8 May, 2025

Author: M.S. Sahoo

Bench: M.S. Sahoo

`   `
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK

                        W.P. (C) No.10147 of 2018

        An application under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of
        India.
                                            ---------------------

Janakalyan Majhi ........ Petitioner

-Versus-

Secretary to Govt. of Odisha, Department of Social Security & Empowerment of persons with Disabilities, Bhubaneswar and another ........ Opposite parties

For Petitioner : Mr. S.K. Tripathy, Advocate

For Opp. parties : Mr. D. Mohanty, AGA (for O.P. No.1)

Mr. P.K. Nayak, Advocate (for O.P. No.2)

Mr. A. Mohanty, Advocate (for AIIMS, Bhubaneswar)

------------------

P R E S E N T:

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Hearing & Judgment:08.05.2025

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ M.S. SAHOO, J

1. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner

who is an applicant for the selection to the post of Junior

Assistant in category of Scheduled Caste (SC), Persons

// 2 //

with Disability (PwD), seeking a direction for

re-verification of his disability percentage as determined

by the appellate medical board in terms of the Persons

with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of

Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Persons

with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of

Rights and Full Participation) Rules, 1996.

2. Considering the prayer of the petitioner and the

submissions of the opposite party no.2, by order dated 18 th

June, 2024, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had directed

the disability to be decided by the expert

Ophthalmologist/Medical Board to be constituted by the

Director, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS),

Bhubaneswar for check up and determination of the

percentage of visual impairment. Thereafter, by order dated

02.08.2024, Mr. A. Mohanty, learned counsel for AIIMS

sought for time to obtain instruction and file affidavit.

Affidavit on behalf of the AIIMS, Bhubaneswar has been

filed, which forms part of the case record. Copy has been

served on Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

Learned AGA also refers to the said report of AIIMS

as available in the brief marked at Flag-"K".

// 3 //

3. Brief facts of the case are that pursuant to the

advertisement made by the opposite party-authority, the

petitioner applied. His candidature was accepted by the

authority on 16th October, 2017 (Annexure-1). The

authority issued a letter directing the petitioner to attend

skill test on 19.10.2017. As the petitioner succeeded in the

qualifying skill test, letter dated 12th January, 2018 was

issued by the opposite party no.2. For genuineness of

disability of candidate, he was directed to be examined by

Appellate Medical Board at the SCB Medical College and

Hospital (SCBMCH), Cuttack. He was examined in the

SCBMCH on 18.01.2018 in the Eye Department.

4. There happens to be difference between the opinion

of the District Medical Board and the Appellate Medical

Board at the SCBMCH, Eye Department regarding the

percentage of disability that is loss of vision suffered by

petitioner. The District Medical Board at Jagatsinghpur has

determined the disability, i.e., the level of impairment to be

40% whereas the Appellate Medical Board has opined the

level of the vision impairment to be 30%. Being 40%

visually impaired, the petitioner as per the statute and

advertisement made by the opposite party no.2 is eligible for

// 4 //

selection in the category of PwD by applying the criteria of

persons of disability in the category of SC.

5. In view of the prayer in the writ petition for referring

to a Medical Board for test of the disability suffered by the

petitioner, the affidavit filed on behalf of the AIIMS,

Bhubaneswar has to be considered and dealt with in some

detail. Paragraphs-2,3,4, 5 and 6 of the affidavit of the

Senior Administrative Officer, AIIMS, Bhubaneswar is

reproduced herein:-

"2) That, in the above case this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 18.06.2024, directed for constitution of a Board by the Director, AIIMS, Bhubaneswar for checking the percentage of visual impairment and the Medical Board shall submit a report before this Hon'ble Court one week thereafter.

3) That, however on being received the details communication address the existing Medical Board have treated the Petitioner on dated 30.07.2024 and the report has been submitted by Dr. Sucheta Parija to the Medical Superintendent, AIIMS, Bhubaneswar on 02.08.2024. The copy of the report dated 02.08.2024 along with other medical documents are filed herewith as Annexure-A.

4) That, in this connection the Director, SSEPD Department, Govt. of Odisha, communicated letter on 20.07.2024 addressing to Director, AIIMS, Bhubaneswar wherein request was made to send the report of the Medical Board to Senior Asst.

Secretary, Paradip Port Trust, (Administrative Section) under intimation to this department. The copy of the letter dated 20.07.2024 is filed herewith as Annexure-B.

// 5 //

5) That, it is to submit here that upon receipt of the letter dated 20.07.2024 the Authority of AIIMS on 06.08.2024 send the report of the Medical Board to Senior Secretary, Paradip Port Trust (Administrative Section) vide speed post letter No.2822 dated 06.08.2024 and the same has been delivered to the Authority of Paradip Port Trust. The copy of the letter dated 06.08.2024 along with proof of sending of said medical report is filed herewith as Annexure-C.

6) That, in this case last occasion, this Hon'ble Court passed an order to file affidavit by the Authority of AIIMS, accordingly the present affidavit is filed for necessary compliance of order of this Hon'ble Court wherein it is evident that the Medical Board has treated the petitioner and report thereof has already been sent to the Paradip Post Trust on 06.08.2024."

6. The affidavit filed by the AIIMS authority encloses

the report dated 2nd August, 2024 of the Professor and Head

of the Department, Department of Ophthalmology, AIIMS,

Bhubaneswar (Annexure-A) which read as follows:-

"Sub: RE-EXAMIANTION OF SRI JANAKALYAN MAJHI DISABILITY, AS PER DIRECTION IN CASE NO.WP(C) No.10147/2018 OF HON'BLE ORISSA HIGH COURT.

Respected Sir, As per your email to re-examine the disability of Sri Janakalyan Majhi (By the direction in case No.W.P.(C) No.10147 of 2018 of Hon'ble High Court) was done on 30.07.2024. On examination, the Visual Acuity was no perception of light in the right eye and best Corrected Visual Acuity (With Standard Correction) 6/24 for distance and N10 for near in left eye. There is scope of improvement of vision with management in left eye. The visual disability category is 60% and temporary for 1 year."

// 6 //

The report encloses the out-patient card dated 30th

July, 2024 of the petitioner indicating that he had visited

outpatient department of Department of Ophthalmology for

comprehensive eye examination, trauma with wooden stick

five years back.

7. Report dated 02.08.2024 clearly indicates complete

loss of vision in left eye due to opacity and visual disability

category to be of 60% and temporary for one year. The loss

of vision being 60% in the left eye and complete loss of

vision in the right eye, the best corrected visual activity

being 6/24 for distance and N10 for the near in the left eye;

making the disability 60% and temporary for one year.

8. The said report corroborates the findings of the

District Medical Board, Jagatsinghpur rather the disability

as found by the Professor of AIIMS on 30th July, 2024 was

more than 40% in the left eye, in the right eye there being

no perception of light.

8. The prayer for the petitioner to re-verification of his

disability has been satisfied by the direction of this Court

by order dated 18.06.2024. The writ petition has to be

allowed.

The petitioner's disability found by the Medical

Board of AIIMS to be 60% in the left eye and complete loss

// 7 //

of sight in the right eye, the consequence would be that

the petitioner after being duly selected was entitled to get

appointment in the S.C. (PwD) category. It has to be held

that the petitioner has been wrongly deprived of getting

appointment, may be in fortuitous circumstances.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party

no.2 submitted on 24.04.2024 that since the writ petition

did not raise an issue regarding getting appointment, he

has not obtained instruction whether there is any vacancy

or not.

By order dated 24.04.2024, the following was

directed:

"9. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 is directed to obtain instruction regarding the number of posts advertised in the SC (PwD) category as per the advertisement in question, number of persons engaged, position of merit of the petitioner in the selection process, the subsequent vacancies arising due to retirement or vacancy for any other reason in the said post. The instruction shall also be obtained regarding availability of any vacancy in any category."

10. The learned counsel Mr. Nayak appearing for the

opposite party no.2 has obtained instruction by electronic

mail (e-mail) dated 06.05.2025 from the opposite party

no.2. The copy of the printout of e-mail is taken on record.

The e-mail indicates the following: