Bharat Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan
2025 Latest Caselaw 16944 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Bharat Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 December, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:53637]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                         JODHPUR
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10056/2024

Bharat Kumar S/o Shri Rupa Ram, Aged About 32 Years,
(Physically Handicapped Candidate-LD), Resident of Village Vada,
Post Bharja, Tehsil Pindwara, District Sirohi (Raj.). Presently
Posted at Govt. Ayurved Hospital, Achpura, Tehsil Pindwara,
District Sirohi.
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.       State of Rajasthan, through its Principal Secretary,
         Ayurved and Indian Medicine Department, Government of
         Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.       Director, Ayurved Department, Ashok Marg, Lohagal
         Road, Savitri College Circle, Ajmer.
3.       Deputy Director, Ayurved Department, Sirohi.
4.       The Ayurved Medical Officer, Govt. Ayurved Hospital,
         Achpura, Tehsil Pindwara, District Sirohi.
5.       All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, Basni,
         Phase-II, Jodhpur, through its Director.
                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Yashpal Khileree, Adv.
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Tananjay Parmar on behalf of
                                 Mr. Deepak Bora, G.C.



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

Order

Order Reserved on : 27/11/2025

Order Pronounced on : 16/12/2025

1) This writ petition challenges the order dated 31.05.2024

passed by the second respondent and the consequential letter

dated 03.06.2024 whereby the order of termination was

(Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 05:44:29 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53637] (2 of 19) [CW-10056/2024]

communicated by the third respondent to the petitioner. The

petitioner seeks quashment of both those orders.

2) The case of the petitioner is that Dr. Sarvepalli

Radhakrishnan Ayurved University, Jodhpur issued an

advertisement dated 16.06.2021 for direct recruitment to the post

of Compounder/Nurse Junior Grade for the non-TSP area to fill 507

vacancies, and 4% of the vacancies for direct recruitment to the

said post were reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities in

terms of Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,

2016 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2016"). The petitioner

applied for the post, claiming reservation under the 4% quota

meant for specially-abled persons. He submitted a disability

certificate dated 25.01.2018 stating that he has 42% locomotor

benchmark disability. The selection process involved a qualifying

examination, and the marks obtained therein were to be added to

bonus marks based on the length of experience in similar work.

The petitioner secured 42.1173% of the total marks, and his name

appeared in both the provisional and final select lists. The second

respondent thereafter issued an appointment order dated

24.05.2022, appointing the petitioner under the disability

category. Upon verification of documents, the third respondent

directed the petitioner to join at Government Ayurvedic Hospital,

Achpura, District Sirohi, by order dated 25.05.2022. The petitioner

joined the post on 26.05.2022.

3) The third respondent, by letter dated 05.07.2023, directed

the petitioner to appear before the Medical Board of SMS Hospital,

Jaipur for verification of his disability. The petitioner appeared

(Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 05:44:29 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53637] (3 of 19) [CW-10056/2024]

before the Medical Board on 12.07.2023, but the report of the

examination was not provided to him. Thereafter, the second

respondent issued a notice dated 08.12.2023 informing him of the

findings of SMS Hospital, Jaipur, wherein the petitioner's disability

was assessed at 30%, whereas a minimum of 40% was required

to qualify as benchmark disability. The petitioner submitted an

explanation to the notice dated 08.12.2023 and also requested a

fresh medical examination by an independent Medical Board. By

the date of the impugned order, he had also completed his

probation. However, by the impugned order dated 31.05.2024, the

petitioner's services were terminated, which was communicated to

him through a letter dated 03.06.2024. Challenging the same,

the present writ petition has been filed.

4) The case of the respondents is that the appointment and

joining of the petitioner were allowed subject to verification of his

disability. The petitioner appeared before the Medical Board of

SMS Hospital, Jaipur, which assessed his disability at 30%,

whereas a minimum permanent disability of 40% is required to

avail benefits under the Act of 2016. Based on the opinion of the

Medical Board, the second respondent issued a notice calling for

an explanation regarding the findings, to which the petitioner

submitted a written reply and was also personally heard.

Thereafter, the impugned orders were passed, terminating the

services of the petitioner, which do not suffer from any fault.

5) Heard learned counsel for both the sides.

6) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted

that the competent authority under the Act of 2016 had issued a

(Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 05:44:29 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53637] (4 of 19) [CW-10056/2024]

valid certificate of disability after properly assessing the

petitioner's disability in accordance with the parameters prescribed

under the relevant Notification. Such a certificate enables the

petitioner to avail the benefits under the Act and remains valid

until it is annulled by the appellate authority or set aside in

appropriate proceedings. While this valid certificate was still in

force, the respondent authorities could not have subjected the

petitioner to a fresh medical examination, and the result of such

examination could not have been relied upon to terminate his

services when the earlier certificate remained unchallenged. Thus,

the action of the respondents is unsustainable in the eye of law.

In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner

has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of

Union of India (UOI) & Ors. Vs. Mahaveer C. Singhvi,

reported in MANU/SC/ 0546/2010.

7) Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the

respondents submits that the employer has every right to verify

the truth of a certificate issued under the Act of 2016. Such

verification includes examining both the genuineness of its

issuance and the truthfulness of its contents. Such authority of the

employer has nothing to do with the procedure contemplated

under the Act of 2016 and the Rules made thereunder for

approaching the Appellate Authority for cancellation of the

certificate. Although the certificate enables the petitioner to avail

reservation and is to be treated as valid across the country,

neither the Act nor the Rules provide that such a certificate

constitutes conclusive proof of disability. It carries only a

(Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 05:44:29 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53637] (5 of 19) [CW-10056/2024]

presumptive value, and that presumption shall be rebutted by

appropriate evidence.

8) I have considered the submissions advanced by both the

parties and carefully perused the material available on record.

9) Considering the submission, this Court is required to test

the competency for an employer to verify such certificate and

whether such certificate has any conclusive proof of its contents.

To deal with contention, this Court thinks appropriate to refer

certain provisions of the Act of 2016, more particularly Sections

2(r), 34, 56 to 59, which read as follows:-

"2(r) "Person with benchmark disability" means a person with not less than forty percent of a specified disability where specified disability has not been defined in measurable terms and includes a person with disability where specified disability has been defined in measurable terms, as certified by the certifying authority."

"34. Reservation.--(1) Every appropriate Government shall appoint in every Government establishment, not less than four per cent. of the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength in each group of posts meant to be filled with persons with benchmark disabilities of which, one per cent. each shall be reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities under clauses (a), (b) and (c) and one per cent. for persons with benchmark disabilities under clauses (d) and (e), namely:--

(a) blindness and low vision;

(b) deaf and hard of hearing;

(c) locomotor disability including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured, dwarfism, acid attack victims and muscular dystrophy;

(d) autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability and mental illness;

(e) multiple disabilities from amongst persons under clauses (a) to (d) including deaf-

blindness in the posts identified for each disabilities:

Provided that the reservation in promotion shall be in accordance with such instructions as are issued by the appropriate Government from time to time:

(Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 05:44:29 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53637] (6 of 19) [CW-10056/2024]

Provided further that the appropriate Government, in consultation with the Chief Commissioner or the State Commissioner, as the case may be, may, having regard to the type of work carried out in any Government establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notifications exempt any Government establishment from the provisions of this section.

(2) Where in any recruitment year any vacancy cannot be filled up due to non-availability of a suitable person with benchmark disability or for any other sufficient reasons, such vacancy shall be carried forward in the succeeding recruitment year and if in the succeeding recruitment year also suitable person with benchmark disability is not available, it may first be filled by interchange among the five categories and only when there is no person with disability available for the post in that year, the employer shall fill up the vacancy by appointment of a person, other than a person with disability:

Provided that if the nature of vacancies in an establishment is such that a given category of person cannot be employed, the vacancies may be interchanged among the five categories with the prior approval of the appropriate Government.

(3) The appropriate Government may, by notification, provide for such relaxation of upper age limit for employment of persons with benchmark disability, as it thinks fit."

xxx xxx xxx

"56. Guidelines for assessment of specified disabilities.--The Central Government shall notify guidelines for the purpose of assessing the extent of specified disability in a person."

"57. Designation of certifying authorities.--(1) The appropriate Government shall designate persons, having requisite qualifications and experience, as certifying authorities, who shall be competent to issue the certificate of disability. (2) The appropriate Government shall also notify the jurisdiction within which and the terms and conditions subject to which, the certifying authority shall perform its certification functions."

(Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 05:44:29 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53637] (7 of 19) [CW-10056/2024]

"58. Procedure for certification.--(1) Any person with specified disability, may apply, in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government, to a certifying authority having jurisdiction, for issuing of a certificate of disability. (2) On receipt of an application under sub-section (1), the certifying authority shall assess the disability of the concerned person in accordance with relevant guidelines notified under section 56, and shall, after such assessment, as the case may be,--

(a) issue a certificate of disability to such person, in such form as may be prescribed by the Central Government;

(b) inform him in writing that he has no specified disability.

(3) The certificate of disability issued under this section shall be valid across the country."

"59. Appeal against a decision of certifying authority.--(1) Any person aggrieved with decision of the certifying authority, may appeal against such decision, within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, to such appellate authority as the State Government may designate for the purpose.

(2) On receipt of an appeal, the appellate authority shall decide the appeal in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government."

9.1) Section 34 mandates that every Government

establishment shall reserve not less than 4% of the total number

of vacancies in the cadre strength for persons with benchmark

disabilities. To fall under the category of benchmark disability, a

person must have a disability of 40% or more. Section 56 deals

with the guidelines for assessment, which are required to be

notified by the Central Government. Section 57 designates the

authorities competent to certify and issue the certificate of

disability. Section 58 contemplates the procedure for making an

application for issuance of a certificate of disability, and provides

(Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 05:44:29 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53637] (8 of 19) [CW-10056/2024]

that such a certificate shall be valid across the country. Section 59

enables any person aggrieved by the decision of the certifying

authority to file an appeal against such decision within the

prescribed time.

10) In this regard, Rules 17 to 20 of the Rights to Persons

with Disabilities Act, 2017 are relevant, which read as follows:-

"17. Application for certificate of disability.-

(1) Any person with specified disability may apply in Form -IV for a certificate of disability and submit the application to -

(a) a medical authority or any other notified competent authority to issue such a certificate in the district of residence of the applicant as mentioned in the proof of residence in the application; or

(b) the concerned medical authority in a government hospital where he may be undergoing or may have undergone treatment in connection with his disability:

Provided that where a person with disability is a minor or suffering from intellectual disability or any other disability which renders him unfit or unable to make such an application himself, the application on his behalf may be made by his legal guardian or by any organisation registered under the Act having the minor under its care. (2) The application shall be accompanied by -

                     (a)    proof of residence;
                     (b)    two recent passport size photographs; and
                     (c)    aadhaar number or aadhaar enrollment
                            number, if any.

Note.- No other proof of residence shall be demanded from the applicant who has aadhaar or aadhaar enrollment number."

"18. Issue of certificate of disability.- (1) On receipt of an application under rule 17, the medical authority or any other notified competent authority shall, verify the information as provided by the applicant and shall assess the disability in terms of the relevant guidelines issued by the Central Government and after satisfying himself that the

(Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 05:44:29 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53637] (9 of 19) [CW-10056/2024]

applicant is a person with disability, issue a certificate of disability in his favour in Form V, VI and VII, as the case may be.

(2) The medical authority shall issue the certificate of disability within a month from the date of receipt of the application.

(3) The medical authority shall, after due examination -

(i) issue a permanent certificate of disability in cases where there are no chances of variation of disability over time in the degree of disability; or

(ii) issue a certificate of disability indicating the period of validity, in cases where there is any chance of variation over time in the degree of disability.

(4) If an applicant is found ineligible for issue of certificate of disability, the medical authority shall convey the reasons to him in writing under Form VIII within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the application.

(5) The State Government and Union territory Administration shall ensure that the certificate of disability is granted on online platform from such date as may be notified by the Central Government."

"19. Certificate issued under rule 18 to be generally valid for all purposes.- A person to whom the certificate issued under rule 18 shall be entitled to apply for facilities, concessions and benefits admissible for persons with disabilities under schemes of the Government and of non- Governmental organizations funded by the Government."

"20. Validity of certificate of disability issued under the repealed Act.- The certificate of disability issued under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (1 of 1996) shall continue to be valid after commencement of the Act for the period specified therein."

10.1) Rule 17 prescribes the application for a certificate of

disability and the documents that must accompany such an

(Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 05:44:29 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53637] (10 of 19) [CW-10056/2024]

application. Rule 18 deals with the issuance of the certificate of

disability by the Medical Authority after due examination. If the

applicant is found ineligible for the issuance of the certificate, the

authority must communicate the reasons for such ineligibility in

writing. Rule 19 concerns the validity of certificates issued under

Rule 18. A reading of Rule 19 makes it clear that such a certificate

entitles the holder to apply for the facilities, concessions, and

benefits available to persons with disabilities under Government

schemes as well as those of non-governmental organizations

funded by the Government. Rule 20 protects certificates issued

under the Repealed Act of 1995.

11) A combined reading of various provisions under the Act

and Rules, it can safely be held that the certificate issued by the

certifying authority is valid across the country and enables the

holder to apply for facilities, concessions, and benefits. This means

that on the strength of such a certificate, an individual may apply

to avail the relevant benefits. Any person aggrieved by the

issuance of such a certificate may file an appeal.

12) Now, the question is whether an employer is required to

accept a certificate blindly merely because it has been produced

by its holder and issued by a competent certifying authority.

Nowhere in the Act or the Rules, the evidentiary value of such a

certificate has been indicated. The Act and the Rules merely state

that the certificate is valid nationwide and enables the holder to

apply for various benefits under the Act. The evidentiary value of

the findings of the Medical Board, as well as of the certificate

(Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 05:44:29 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53637] (11 of 19) [CW-10056/2024]

itself, must be assessed in light of the relevant provisions of the

Evidence Act.

13) Section 44 of the Evidence Act deals with opinion of an

expert and it reads as follows:-

"44. Fraud or collusion in obtaining judgment, or incompetency of Court, may be proved.-Any party to a suit or other proceeding may show that any judgment, order or decree which is relevant under Section 40, 41 or 42 and which has been proved by the adverse party, was delivered by a Court not competent to deliver it, or was obtained by fraud or collusion."

13.1) When the Court has to form an opinion on a matter of

science, the opinions of persons specially skilled in that science

are considered relevant facts. Such persons are called experts.

The determination of disability falls under medical science, and

certificates are issued based on the opinions of persons specially

skilled in the field of medical science. This means that the

certificates are founded on expert opinions and inherently reflect

the views of persons with specialized knowledge in the relevant

science. Section 4 of the Evidence Act is also relevant. The said

provisions deal with three kinds of presumption: (1) "may

presume," (2) "shall presume," and (3) "conclusive presumption."

In a "may presume" situation, the Court may either regard such a

fact as proved unless and until it is disproved, or it may call for

evidence to establish it. In a "shall presume" situation, the Court

shall regard the fact as proved unless and until it is disproved, and

there is no opportunity for the Court to call for additional proof. A

conclusive presumption means that upon proof of one fact,

(Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 05:44:29 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53637] (12 of 19) [CW-10056/2024]

another fact is treated as conclusively proved, and no evidence is

permitted to disprove it.

14) Section 79 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as follows:-

"79. Presumption as to genuineness of certified copies. - The Court shall presume [to be genuine] every document purporting to be a certificate, certified copy or other document, which is by Law declared to be admissible as evidence of any particular fact, and which purports to be duly certified by any officer [of the Central Government or of a State Government, or by any officer [in the State of Jammu and Kashmir] who is duly authorized thereto by the Central Government]:

Provided that such document is substantially in the form and purports to be executed in the manner directed by law in that behalf.

The Court shall also presume that any officer by whom any such document purports to be signed or certified, held, when he signed it, the official character which he claims in such paper."

14.1) The said provisions direct that the Court shall presume

genuineness of every document presented as a certificate,

certified copy, or any other document which is, by law, declared

admissible in evidence regarding any particular fact, provided such

a document is duly certified by an officer of the State or Central

Government and is executed in the manner prescribed by law.

This means that a certificate issued by a competent authority

entitled to certify a disability carries a "shall presume" status.

However, this does not render the document conclusive proof of

any fact; evidence may still be allowed to disprove it. The

provisions of the Act of 2020, the Act of 2016, and the Rules of

2017 clearly state that such a certificate shall be valid throughout

the country and enable the holder to apply for benefits under the

(Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 05:44:29 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53637] (13 of 19) [CW-10056/2024]

Act. These provisions are in consonance with Section 79 of the

Indian Evidence Act.

15) The employer is not required to challenge a certificate

issued by a competent authority by filing an appeal as it is not

aggrieved when it was issued. It is the independent authority's

employer to verify the authenticity of the document, including the

truth of its contents, in order to prove or disprove the applicant's

claim. It cannot be argued that such a document is beyond

question, as if it possesses the evidentiary value of conclusive

proof. Such a position would have dangerous consequences. If a

person obtains a certificate through collusion or fraud, that

certificate would still be accepted and could not be challenged, this

would result in the denial of statutory rights of genuinely disabled

persons who are entitled to avail of reservations or other benefits

under the Act.

15.1 It is relevant to refer to decision of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court rendered in the case of State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Ravindra

Kumar Sharma & Ors, reported in (2016)4 SCC 791, in which, a

similar controversy arose, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court had an

occasion to consider the State's right to verify disability certificates

issued by Medical Boards. In this regard, certain paragraphs of the

judgment are relevant, which read as under:-

"6. In the facts of the instant case there was a serious complaint lodged by Viklang Sangh of illegal usurpation of the quota reserved for specially abled by large number of persons who were not in fact specially abled and have procured certificates fraudulently from their districts under the Rules of 1996. On the basis of the said complaint Government has issued an order for the purpose of verification of such certificates issued by the Medical Board and certificates of 21% of

(Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 05:44:29 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53637] (14 of 19) [CW-10056/2024]

selected candidates of handicapped category were found to be fraudulent. It is settled proposition of law that fraud vitiates and in such a case when large number of candidates have illegally usurped the reserved seats of the persons suffering from disability the action of State Government did not call for interference.

7. In Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2005) 7 SCC 605, it was observed :

"16. In Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley (1956) 1 All ER 341, Lord Denning observed at QB pp.

712 and 713: (All ER p. 345 C)

"No judgment of a court, no order of a minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything."

In the same judgment Lord Parker, L.J. observed that fraud vitiates all transactions known to the law of however high a degree of solemnity. (p. 722) These aspects were recently highlighted in State of A.P. v. T. Suryachandra Rao (2005) 6 SCC 149."

8. In Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi (2003) 8 SCC 319 it was held thus:

"15. x x x Fraud as is well known vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwell together.

16. Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which induces the other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by word or letter.

17. It is also well settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud. Indeed, innocent misrepresentation may also give reason to claim relief against fraud.

18. A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by wilfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations which he knows to be false, and injury ensues therefrom although the motive from which the

(Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 05:44:29 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53637] (15 of 19) [CW-10056/2024]

representations proceeded may not have been bad.

xxx

23. An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of others in relation to a property would render the transaction void ab initio. Fraud and deception are synonymous.

xxx

25. Although in a given case a deception may not amount to fraud, fraud is anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine including res judicata.

26. In Shrisht Dhawan v. Shaw Bros. (1992) 1 SCC 534, it has been held that: (SCC p. 553, para 20)

"20. Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilized system of jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human conduct."

xxx

29. In Chittaranjan Das v. Durgapore Project Ltd. (1995) 99 CWN 897, it has been held:

(Cal LJ p. 402, paras 57-58)

"57. Suppression of a material document which affects the condition of service of the petitioner, would amount to fraud in such matters. Even the principles of natural justice are not required to be complied with in such a situation. 58. It is now well known that a fraud vitiates all solemn acts. Thus, even if the date of birth of the petitioner had been recorded in the service returns on the basis of the certificate produced by the petitioner, the same is not sacrosanct nor the respondent company would be bound thereby."

9. This Court in Express Newspapers (P) Ltd.& Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1986) 1 SCC 133 at para 119 has held thus:

"119. Fraud on power voids the order if it is not exercised bona fide for the end design.

(Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 05:44:29 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53637] (16 of 19) [CW-10056/2024]

There is a distinction between exercise of power in good faith and misuse in bad faith. The former arises when an authority misuses its power in breach of law, say, by taking into account bona fide, and with best of intentions, some extraneous matters or by ignoring relevant matters. That would render the impugned act or order ultra vires. It would be a case of fraud on powers. The misuse in bad faith arises when the power is exercised for an improper motive, say, to satisfy a private or personal grudge or for wreaking vengeance of a Minister as in S. Partap Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1964 SC 72. A power is exercised maliciously if its repository is motivated by personal animosity towards those who are directly affected by its exercise. Use of a power for an 'alien' purpose other than the one for which the power is conferred is mala fide use of that power. Same is the position when an order is made for a purpose other than that which finds place in the order. The ulterior or alien purpose clearly speaks of the misuse of the power and it was observed as early as in 1904 by Lord Lindley in General Assembly of Free Church of Scotland v. Overtoun (1904) AC 515, 'that there is a condition implied in this as well as in other instruments which create powers, namely, that the powers shall be used bona fide for the purpose for which they are conferred'. It was said by Warrington, C.J. in Short v. Poole Corpn. (1926) Ch 66, that:

'No public body can be regarded as having statutory authority to act in bad faith or from corrupt motives, and any action purporting to be of that body, but proved to be committed in bad faith or from corrupt motives, would certainly be held to be inoperative."

11. In our considered opinion in the peculiar facts of this case of such a fraud and genuine suspicion raised in the representation lodged by the Viklang Sangh and when 21% of such certificates have been found to be fraudulently obtained there was no scope for the Division Bench to interfere and issue order to perpetuate fraud, writ is to be declined in such a scenario and no equity can be claimed by the respondents.

(Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 05:44:29 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53637] (17 of 19) [CW-10056/2024]

16) The ratio of the above judgment is very clear. An

employer/State has the right to verify a disability certificate if

there is any genuine suspicion regarding its contents by an

appropriate medical board. The petitioner was subjected to

medical examination after joining the post. Upon examination by

the Medical Board constituted by the State/Employer, the Board

determined the petitioner's disability as 30%, whereas the

petitioner's earlier certificate from a different Medical Board had

indicated a 42% locomotor disability. When the Director issued a

notice informing the petitioner about the opinion of the Medical

Board, the petitioner submitted an explanation and requested only

an independent medical examination. When it was turned down

and the impugned orders were passed, the petitioner approached

this Court. This Court directed the Director of AIIMS to constitute

an appropriate Medical Board to examine the petitioner and

determine the exact percentage of disability. Surprisingly, the

independent Medical Board appointed by the Court determined the

petitioner's disability as 12%. The opinions between the Medical

Board which originally issued the medical certificate, the

subsequent examination by the Medical Board appointed by the

Government/ Employer, and the independent opinion given by

AIIMS, Jodhpur, are greater in variation. If the opinions of such

experts show only minor variations, the opinion tendered by the

subsequent Board could be ignored in order to give credence to

the first Medical Board that signified the disability. On the test of

the standard of evidence required to disprove the presumption of

evidentiary value attached to such a certificate, the variation in

(Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 05:44:29 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53637] (18 of 19) [CW-10056/2024]

the first certificate and the independent opinion rendered by the

Medical Board are of great significance. A person having 12%

disability cannot be allowed to claim 42% disability. If this is

allowed, the very object of extending reservation to specially-

abled persons gets defeated, and persons who are ineligible to

claim reservation become eligible, thereby taking away

opportunities of those who are genuinely entitled to such special

treatment. Further, the petitioner did not resist any medical

examination by the independent Medical Board of AIIMS when

directed, and in fact, his prayer before the appointing authority,

consequent to the lesser determination of disability, was only for a

fresh examination by an independent Medical Board. Such an

independent Board was constituted by this Court, and the

independent Board opined that there was only 12% locomotor

disability. This independent Board's evaluation cannot be ignored.

17) The judgment in the case of Union of India (UOI) &

Ors. v. Mahaveer C. Singhvi, upon which the learned counsel

for the petitioner has relied, has nothing to do with the principle

involved in the present case. That case pertained to termination of

the petitioner's services as a punitive measure during the

probation period without affording an opportunity of hearing.

Therefore, the said ratio is not applicable to the facts of the

present case, as there is no violation of the principles of natural

justice herein.

18) In the backdrop of the present facts and circumstances,

this Court finds that the orders of termination was justifiable in

(Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 05:44:29 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53637] (19 of 19) [CW-10056/2024]

the facts and circumstances of the case and the impugned orders

require no interference.

19) In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.

20) In the circumstances, no order as to costs.

21) Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand

disposed of.

(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J

-NK/-

(Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 05:44:29 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)