Orissa High Court
Sameer Satapathy vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 25 September, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
AFR
W.P.(C) No.19594 of 2021
Sameer Satapathy .... Petitioner
Mr. A.P. Bose, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Ms. B. Dash, ASC
Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Sr. Advocate
Mr. B.S. Rayaguru, CGC
W.P.(C) No.19246 of 2021
Bhagyashree Nayak .... Petitioner
Mr. D. Acharya, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha & others .... Opposite Parties
Ms. B. Dash. ASC
Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Sr. Advocate
Mr. B.S. Rayaguru, CGC
W.P.(C) No.19578 of 2021
Chandan Kumar Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. A.P. Bose, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha & others .... Opposite Parties
Ms. B. Dash. ASC
Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Sr. Advocate
Mr. B.S. Rayaguru, CGC
Page 1 of 21
And
W.P.(C) No.19635 of 2021
Jnananjay Behera .... Petitioner
Mr. A.P.Bose, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha & others .... Opposite Parties
Ms. B. Dash. ASC
Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Sr. Advocate
Mr. B.S. Rayaguru, CGC
CORAM:
JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
DATE OF JUDGMENT:25.09.2025
1.
All the writ petitions have been clubbed together for
disposal by the following common judgment.
2. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioners assailing the
impugned notification dated 28th June, 2021 at Annexure-14
and further to direct opposite party No.1 to issue letters of
appointment in their favour to the posts applied for pursuant
to the select list as at Annexure-5 with effect from the date
the other candidates have been issued the appointment orders
besides granting them the consequential service and financial
benefits within a stipulated period.
3. In fact, the challenge is to the notification of the
Government of Odisha in Department of Water Resources at
Annexure-14, whereby, the petitioners have been found not
suitable to be appointed to the posts under Persons with
Disabilities (PwDs) category after verification by the Special
Medical Board in terms of the provisions of the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as
'the Act') and guidelines issued by the Social Security and
Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (SS&EPD)
Department dated 24th October, 2019 as wholly illegal,
arbitrary and not in consonance with law and guidelines of
the Department dated 16th April, 2019 by then in force when
Advertisement No.1 of 2019/20 was published by the Odisha
Public Service Commission (OPSC) dated 27th May, 2019
and equally violative of the principles of natural justice.
4. The OPSC with the advertisement as per Annexure-1
invited online applications from the prospective candidates to
fill up the posts of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) in (a)
Water Resources Department; (b) Works Department; and (c)
Housing and Urban Development Department under Water
Resources Department and Assistant Executive Engineer
(Mechanical) under Water Resources Department in Group-A
of the Odisha Engineering Service carrying the scale of pay
in Level-12 of Pay Matrix under Odisha Revised Scales of
Pay Rules, 2017 with usual DA and other allowances as may
be admissible. In the said advertisement, the vacancy position
for PwDs category was 37 with the following break-ups, such
as, (i) blindness/low vision-16; (ii) hearing impairment-05;
(iii) locomotor disability/cerebral palsy-04; and (iv)
autism/intellectual disabilities/multiple disabilities-12.
5. According to the petitioners, in such advertisement i.e.
Annexure-1, nature and degree of disability has not been
prescribed for being eligible. The requirement of a Disability
Certificate is only specified therein indicating the percentage
of specified disability. It is pleaded that as per the
advertisement, persons with more than 40% disability are
bestowed with a concession for being exempted from
payment of fee on the application with age relaxation.
Pursuant to the advertisement of the OPSC, the petitioners
with all documents applied for the posts enclosing Disability
Certificates (Annexure-2) issued by the District Medical
Board. The common pleading is that the OPSC having found
the petitioners eligible, issued admit cards (Annexure-3) to
them as PwDs candidates to appear the written examination
to be held on 15th December, 2019. The petitioners, as further
made to reveal from the pleading on record, having cleared
the written examination were called for viva voce test by
letters of intimation (Annexure-4) fixing the dates to appear
for the said purpose. Thereafter, according to the petitioners,
all of them stood provisionally selected with a list published
followed by a notice dated 22nd December, 2020 at
Annexure-5, wherein, the percentage of the disability was
mentioned individually. It is pleaded that there was no
indication as to whether the percentage of disability as per
the reporting authority to be permanent or temporary but be
that as it may, the Disability Certificates issued to them
categorically mentioned the percentage of disability of
permanent nature. Upon the select list prepared and published
by the OPSC, opposite party No.1 issued intimation vide
Annexure-6 to the petitioners and other candidates, for
medical examination by the Special Medical Board and
thereafter, they were called upon for verification of
genuineness of the disability as per Annexure-7. The
petitioners appeared before the Special Medical Board as
instructed and after assessment was over, the report was
forwarded to the SS&EPD Department as per the findings
indicated in Annexure-8.
6. The reports which were a sequel to the medical
assessment by the Special Medical Board mentioned the
disability of the petitioners as 60%, however, the nature of
such disabilities to be temporary when the statutory authority
with minimum of 40% disability had certified the same as
permanent. After having received the report of the Special
Medical Board at Annexure-8, the Director, SS&EPD by
letter dated 30th March, 2021 (Annexure-9) furnished the
original verification report to opposite party No.1. Upon
receiving the assessment report, it has led to the issuance of
the impugned notification (Annexure-14) indicating therein
the percentage and nature of disability as against each of the
petitioners and other candidates of PwDs category with
reasons for non-consideration.
7. Perused the counter affidavit of opposite party No.1. As
per the reply of opposite party No.1, taking into account the
report of the Special Medical Board, the cases of 10 PwDs
candidates (9 Civil + 1 Mechanical) including the petitioners,
all have been found not suitable for appointment in terms of
the provisions of the Act and guidelines of the State
Government as per Annexure-15 and the reason assigned is
that extension of any such benefit of reservation in
Government employment to the candidates holding
temporary certificates of disability and the decision in that
regard is based on a clarification issued by the Government
of India vide letter No.22-02/2019/DD-III dated 16th January,
2019 as at Annexure-D/1 addressed to the School and Mass
Education Department and letter dated 24th October, 2019 i.e.
Annexure-15 of the SS&EPD Department, wherein, it is
indicated that persons with disabilities of temporary nature
implies that percentage of disability of the person may
progress or regress as it is temporary, not permanent and
therefore, it may not be appropriate to allow reservation in
job with bench mark disabilities of temporary nature as at the
time their percentage of the disabilities reduces below 40%,
such persons would not anymore be considered as disabled
and shall have to be excluded from the definition of
benchmark disability mentioned in the Act, however, persons
with temporary disabilitities may be given other benefits as
long as their disability is not less than 40%. It is pleaded in
the counter that the SS&EPD Department clarified that the
principles of reservation for PwDs shall be guided by the
provisions of the Act and as per the letter received from the
Government of India to the effect that the persons holding
temporary Disability Certificates should not be considered
for appointment and in such view of the matter, having
received such a clarification as per Annexure-D/1, the
petitioners have been considered unsuitable for the simple
reason that a person with disability must have 40%
permanent disability issued by the competent authority in
specific category of disability to avail reservation in jobs.
8. Heard learned counsels for the respective parties.
9. With the above facts pleaded, the rejection of the
petitioners to the posts advertised is under challenge. The
Department of Water Resources declined the appointment of
the petitioners because of their 60% disability found to be
temporary and not permanent, which according to opposite
party No.1, is the criteria required for reservation in jobs as
per the Act and Government guidelines issued.
10. The Apex Court in Vikash Kumar Vrs. Union Public
Service Commission and others (2021) 5 SCC 370, while
dealing with the provisions of the Act, held and observed that
the law is a statutory manifestation of a constitutional
commitment and is based on the principle of equality and
non-discrimination and casts an affirmative obligation on the
Government to ensure that persons with the disabilities enjoy
(i) the right to equality; (ii) a life with dignity; and (iii)
respect for them integrating equally with others, inasmuch as,
Section 3 thereof is a declaration of the intent of the
Legislature that the fundamental postulate of equality and
non-discrimination is made available to persons with
disabilities without constraint and as such is a statutory
recognition of the constitutional rights embodied in Articles
14, 19 and 21 among other provisions of Part-III of the
Constitution of India. The intent and purpose of the Act has
been lucidly discussed and elaborated upon in the said
decision keeping in view the international human rights law
and other conventions. Regard being had to the objective of
the law dealing with the subject, this Court is to consider,
whether, any such decision of opposite party No.1 is in
accordance therewith having denied appointment of the
petitioners to the posts advertised on the premise that all of
them suffer from temporary disabilities.
11. Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the petitioners referred to
Annexure-11, a letter by opposite party No.4 to all the
Departments of the Government and others with intimation to
include and consider reservation in Government jobs for
persons having temporary disabilities. It is submitted that the
Act is a beneficial legislation and therefore, any such
disability, whether, temporary or permanent shall have to be
equally considered for reservation in Government
employment and therefore, such intimation as per
Annexuxre-11 was issued by opposite party No.4. The
further contention is that the temporary disability may
increase or decrease but the petitioners having been issued
with Disability Certificates by a competent authority, it could
not have been discarded at the time of considering their
appointment to the posts. It is submitted by Mr. Bose, learned
counsel that any such certificates issued can only be annulled
in the manner prescribed under Section 52 of the Act and the
Special Medical Board is only to verify the genuineness of
the certificates and has no jurisdiction to certify, whether, a
disability is temporary or permanent. In support of the
contentions advanced, Mr. Bose, learned counsel cited the
following decisions, such as, Sujata Sahu and others Vrs.
State of Odisha and others MANU/OR/0347/2022;
Anushrav Gantayat Vrs. State of Odisha and others in
W.P.(C) No.21215 of 2019 dated 19th December, 2023; Sisir
Kumar Sahoo and others Vrs. State of Odisha and others
dated 15th March, 2023 in W.P.(C) No.22896 of 2015; and
Anmol Kumar Mishra Vrs. Union of India and others
dated 29th November, 2021 of Delhi High Court in W.P.(C)
No.13146 of 2021. The contention is that the Act does not
indicate anywhere about the disability necessarily to be
permanent and it only relates to the benchmark disability,
hence, therefore, the petitioners having the specified
disabilities, it could not have been substituted by a decision
declaring them as temporarily disabled after verification
being carried out by the Special Medical Board.
12. On the contrary, Mr. Tripathy, learned AGA for the
State would submit that no illegality has been committed
since the petitioners have been subjected to medical
examination before the Special Medical Board and the same
is in accordance with the Act and Rules made thereunder and
such an exercise revealed the nature of disabilities to be
temporary, whereas, the law envisages that reservation in
Government jobs is meant for persons with permanent
disabilities and since they found to have temporary
disabilities, the impugned notification i.e. Annexure-14 was
accordingly issued. The further submission is that the letter in
question at Annexure-11 heavily relied upon by the
petitioners stood superseded vide Annexure-15 as opposite
party No.4 issued the revised clarification stating therein that
the Act is a Central legislation and Government of India in
Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment of Persons with
Disabilities is authorized under Section 56 of the Act to issue
guidelines on certification of various disabilities. Referring to
Annexure-15, it is submitted that provision of reservation in
employment cannot be extended to persons with benchmark
disabilities holding temporary Disability Certificates. A
resolution dated 25th February, 2021 of the State Government
in Department of SS&EPD at Annexure-16 is placed reliance
on by Mr. Tripathy, learned AGA to contend that the
appointing authorities in view of Clause 2(3) thereof shall
verify the Disability Certificates before appointment, the
purpose being to prevent false or fake claims advanced and to
ensure that genuine disabled persons are appointed. By
highlighting upon the relevant provisions of the Act, it is
lastly contended by Mr. Tripathy, learned AGA that one
should possess benchmark disability while demanding
reservation in employment and it cannot be claimed for a
temporary disability and as the petitioners having been
subjected to verification vis-à-vis specified disabilities
through a Special Medical Board duly constituted by a
notification dated 6th March, 2019 by the SS&EPD
Department, Odisha and it clearly revealed the disabilities to
be temporary, opposite party No.4 did not err in issuing the
impugned notification at Annexure-14. The contention is that
the advertisement and any such quota for PwDs category
indicated therein must relate to permanent disabilities and not
temporary and the certificates issued to all of them may only
be used for other purposes but not for reservation in
educational institutions and Government employment.
13. Annexure-A/1 to the counter affidavit is the
notification dated 6th March, 2019 by the SS&EPD
Department regarding appointment of the Appellate
Authority to exercise the powers and discharge the functions
as conferred under the Act and Odisha Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Rules, 2018. Therein, it has been mentioned that
the Medical Assessment Boards shall assess all such cases as
may be referred to them by the Appellate Authority for
determination vis-à-vis nature and degree of disabilitities. In
the instant case, the petitioners were made to appear before
the Special Medical Board consequent upon their selection in
order to verify genuineness of their Disability Certificates.
The resolution of the Government dated 5th September, 2017
at Annexure-B/1 to the reply affidavit is with regard to the
reservation and other concessions for the persons with
disabilities in various posts or services under the State
Government or Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) and
therein, as per Clause 2(4), a provision has been made for
verification of Disability Certificates and as earlier discussed,
with reference to Annexure-16, it was to thwart false or fake
claims and at the same time, to ensure that genuine
candidates received the appointments, hence, the Appointing
Authorities are to get all the disabilities duly verified by the
Authority appointed under Section 59 (1) of the Act.
14. The advertisement is of the year 2019 and in so far as,
the letter of SS&EPD at Annexuxre-11 is concerned, it
arrived nearly a month before the date of advertisement i.e.
27th May, 2019 and according to Mr. Bose, learned counsel
for the petitioners, the same is applicable and not the revised
one as per Annexure-15. In other words, it is contended that
the clarification issued as per Annexure-15 would not
inapplicable to the case of the petitioners retrospectively. In
support of such contention, a decision of the Apex Court in
K. Manjusree Vrs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another
AIR 2008 SC 1470 is cited with the submission that rules
cannot be changed after the selection process has commenced
and in reply, it is responded by Mr. Tripathy, learned AGA
that Annexure-15 is merely a clarification issued by the
Government and as far as Annexure-1 is concerned, the same
is in accordance with the Act and Rules. The Court
considering the submissions of learned counsel for the
respective parties is of the view that the above decision is
inapplicable since Annexure-15 is just a clarification, not
amendment to any of the conditions of Annexure-1. It is
rather a guideline issued by the Government to be followed.
The Court is, therefore, inclined to hold that the letter as per
Annexure-11 was superseded by Annexure-15 with the
revised clarification issued by the Government stating therein
that the benefits of reservation can only be extended to the
persons with benchmark disabilities meaning thereby not a
person of temporary disability but a long term disability not
less than 40% of the specified disability defined in the Act.
Any such reservation must have to be in terms of the Act and
Rules. The advertisement as per Annexure-1 is to abide by
the provisions of the Act and Rules. If any clarification was
issued by the Government as per Annexure-11 and the same
is inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the law, it could
be followed by a further clarification and rightly, therefore,
the revised one was issued vide Annexure-15 with intimation
to the Government Departments, Heads of Department and
the Collectors of the State to consider employment of persons
with permanent disabilities and not temporary.
15. As per Section 2(r) of the Act, 'person with benchmark
disability' means a person with not less than 40% of a
specified disability defined in measurable terms and includes
a person with disability, where, the disability has been
defined and certified by the Authority. The expression
'person with disability' is defined in Section 2(s) thereof and
it means a person with long term physical, mental,
intellectual or sensory impairment, which, upon interaction
with barriers, hinders his full and effective participation in
society equally with others. Someone, who needs intensive
support physically, psychologically etc. and a person with
such disability, is defined in Section 2(t) of the Act. In fact,
Section 32 deals with reservation in higher educational
institutions of the Government and such other institutions
receiving Government aid to reserve not less than 5% of seats
for persons with benchmark disabilities. As to the reservation
in Government employment, it is prescribed under Section 34
of the Act, according to which, not less than 4% of the total
number of vacancies in the cadre strength in each group of
post meant to be filled up shall be reserved for persons with
benchmark disabilities with breakup vis-à-vis the types of the
disabilities, like blindness, deaf and hard of hearing etc. Any
such certificate of registration by a competent authority with
regard to disability may be revoked exercising powers under
Section 52 of the Act.
16. In the case at hand, the moot question is, whether, the
petitioners are eligible to be appointed even having
temporary disabilities? The Disability Certificates issued to
the petitioners revealed disabilities to be permanent and it is
40% and above, whereas, the Special Medical Board's report
is otherwise disclosing the disabilities as 60% but temporary,
as a result of which, this Court by order dated 2 nd December,
2024 directed further verification and assessment of the
disabilities and for them to appear before a Medical Board
suitably constituted by the Superintendent of SCB Medical
College and Hospital, Cuttack. Accordingly, the petitioners
appeared before the Medical Board duly constituted and their
percentage of disabilities again differed. As per the said
Medical Board, the petitioners, namely, Sameer Satapathy
found to have disability of 70% (permanent); Jnananjay
Behera 30% (permanent); Chandan Kumar Sahoo 60%
(temporary) and Bhagyashree Nayak 60% (permanent),
which means, only two them found to have the permanent
disabilities.
17. With the assessment of the Medical Board having been
received, the Court is to consider, whether, all or only two of
the petitioners with disability of permanent nature should be
considered for reservation. According to Mr. Bose, learned
counsel for the petitioners, in view of the Medical Board's
report, Sameer Satapathy and Bhagyashree Nayak are eligible
for appointment as both of them are having 70% and 60%
permanent disabilities respectively. As to the other two
candidates, namely, Jnananjay Behera and Chandan Kumar
Sahoo, the contention of Mr. Bose, learned counsel is that at
the time of issuance of the Disability Certificates, both of
them noticed to have 40% permanent disability and even
though, the nature of disability is found to have changed, the
Court should not deny them the reservation. Interestingly, a
40% permanent disability in respect of Jnananjay Behera has
become 30% on assessment by the Medical Board, which
was a 60% temporary disability as per Special Medical
Board's report, referring to which, Mr. Bose, learned counsel
submits that 40% permanent disability at the time of issuance
of the certificate in his favour should not be rejected
outrightly. In so far as, the other candidate, namely, Chandan
Kumar Sahoo is concerned, it is claimed that he had a 40%
permanent disability, hence, the Court is also to consider the
same notwithstanding the report of the Medical Board and
the Board constituted by the Court's order. Since, the
petitioners found to be having temporary disabilities by the
Special Medical Board even though issued with Disability
Certificates not less than 40% and permanent in nature, the
Court intervened and accordingly, the Medical Board was
constituted and therefore, it has to consider such assessment
report which revealed only two of them having the permanent
with benchmark disabilities.
18. The relevant provisions having been discussed herein
before, the Court is to consider, if the law envisages a
disability including temporary besides permanent for
reservation in employment, which is contended by Mr. Bose,
learned counsel for the petitioners by referring to the decision
in Sisir Kumar Sahoo (supra). In the above decision,
disability was questioned by an unsuccessful candidate in a
selection process leading to the further assessment by a
Medical Board upon a direction to the Director of Vigilance
to cause an enquiry and in that connection, it has been
concluded therein that the minimum degree of disability
should be 40% and it includes a temporary disability as there
is nothing in the Act, rules or guidelines issued by the
Government to show the nature of disability required to be
eligible for any concession or benefits. In the said case, upon
enquiry held and received, this Court concluded that such
enquiry is inconclusive and it failed to prove that the
Disability Certificates had been managed by fraud and hence,
directed the petitioners therein, who had been removed from
service, to be reinstated.
19. In fact, on a proper reading of Section 34 of the Act, it
is made clear that reservation shall be for a person with
benchmark disability defined in Section 2(r) thereof.
Furthermore, Section 2(s) of the Act defines a 'person with
disability' means a long term impairment making him
incapacitated for having full and effective participation in
equal terms with others. A disability not less than 40% as
specified in Section 2(r) of the Act does relate to a permanent
disability where such specified disability either defined in
measurable terms or not but by no means, it is to include a
temporary disability, all the more when, as per the definition,
'person with disability' refers to a person having long term
disability. The Act is a legislation meant to provide
reservation in Government jobs and educational institutions
having permanent disability and not to include all and
everyone, who does not fall within such category. If the
scheme of the law is properly understood and appreciated, a
minimum of 40% benchmark disability defined in Section
2(r) of the Act is complementary to a disability of permanent
nature. In case, a temporarily disabled person is considered
for reservation, according to the Court, it would defeat the
law in place and the intention of the Legislature. In fact,
Annexure-D/1 to the counter affidavit is a communication
received from the Government of India with the clarification
issued therein on applicability of reservation and hence, it is
made amply clear that a disability is meant for reservation
only if the same is of permanent nature and such persons with
temporary disability may avail other benefits as long as the
disability is not less than 40% elaborating further that the
persons with disability of temporary in nature implies that the
percentage of disability may progress or regress as it is
temporary, not permanent and therefore, it may not be
appropriate to allow reservation in jobs to persons with
temporary disability, as at any time, the percentage of
disability may change and could leave out such persons from
the definition of 'person with benchmark disability'. Such
revised clarification on reservation issued by the Government
of India as per Annexure-D/1 was circulated to all concerned
by opposite party No.4 vide Annexure-15 thereby
superseding Annexure-11.
20. Since, the law in clear and unequivocal term defines a
person with disability means someone having long term
impairment, it has to be understood that the reservation is
meant for the person having permanent disability with not
less than 40% of a specified disability. Having said that, this
Court is not inclined to accept the argument advanced by Mr.
Bose, learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the
decision in Sisir Kumar Sahoo (supra), hence, it is
respectfully disagreed. Any such decision allowing persons
of temporary disability with reservation in Government
employment would be against the spirit of the law and
certainly to frustrate the real intendment of the Legislature.
The above conclusion is reached at after having taken
cognizance of all the citations referred to from the side of the
petitioners.
21. As to the reports of the Medical Board, the Court
having found two of the petitioners, namely, Sameer
Satpathy and Bhagyashree Nayak having permanent and
benchmark disability of 70% and 60% respectively, even
though, found to have 60% temporary disability on an
assessment by the Special Medical Board held after their
selection, accepting such further assessment, the conclusion
of the Court is that they fall within the zone of consideration
of a specified disability of permanent nature and hence, are
eligible for appointment, whereas, two others, namely,
Jnananjay Behera and Chandan Kumar Sahoo cannot be
considered for such appointment as the disability is found to
be 30% permanent (less than benchmark disability) and 60%
temporary (disability being not permanent). The assessment
report of the Special Medical Board on verification as to 60%
temporary disability vis-à-vis Chandan Kumar Sahoo stands
confirmed on account of further verification, hence, he is
beyond consideration for reservation. As regards, Jnananjay
Behera, the percentage of disability, though, permanent but it
is less than 40% against 60% temporary disability originally
assessed by the Special Medical Board, hence, he is also not
considered eligible for appointment and in view of such
assessment reports received by the Court, the findings on
disability are treated as final and conclusive.
22. At the first blush, the Court was inclined to consider the
case of Jnananjay Behera as he has been found with
permanent disability though below 40% by the Medical
Board but ultimately arrived at a decision otherwise. It is
quite unusual to notice the result to the extreme with so much
of fluctuation as found originally with a permanent disability
of 40% and also at the end but below the benchmark at 30%
and in-between, 60% temporary disability as concluded by
the Special Medical Board but the Court is left with no other
option except to treat the case of Jnananjay Behera as a
disability not satisfying the threshold limit. It had to be
concluded so, since the final result of the Medical Board with
the report received takes precedence and that apart, it would
also be unwise to replace the same resorting to any analysis
by the Court on its own. It may be claimed that if the
disability has remained permanent even by a further
assessment, the Disability Certificate issued by the competent
authority is probably correct and acceptable in the case of
Jnananjay Behera. But, any such decision would again be
guesswork and therefore, it is advisable not to venture and to
offer any opinion, which cannot be justified at the end with
reasons. The Court cannot blindly substitute the opinion of
the Medical Board with no plausible explanation to offer.
The Court just not to sit over the report of the Medical Board
like an authority in appeal without any justification. Since,
the report of the Medical Board takes precedence, the Court
is inclined to accept the same instead of tinkering with it.
23. Hence, it is ordered.
24. In the result, the writ petitions in W.P.(C) No. 19594 of
2021and W.P.(C) No. 19246 of 2021 are allowed, but
dismissing W.P.(C) No. 19578 of 2021 and W.P.(C) No.
19635 of 2021 for the reasons discussed herein before
followed by a direction to opposite party No.1 to issue orders
of appointment only in respect of two of the petitioners,
namely, Sameer Satpathy and Bhagyashree Nayak, who are
found to have the benchmark disabilities and finally accepted
in view of the visual disability verification reports received
from the Regional Institute & Department of Ophthalmology,
SCB Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack, Odisha vide letter
Nos. 17 and 1719 dated 2nd January, 2025 and 31st December,
2024 respectively. As a necessary corollary, the impugned
notification dated 28th June, 2021 as at Annexure-14 stands
modified to the extent as aforesaid.
25. Issue urgent certified copy of the judgment as per rules.
Designation: Junior Stenographer (R.K. Pattanaik)
Location: OHC, CTC Judge
Date: 26-Sep-2025 19:42:34 Tudu/Rojina
