LexRIMA TAIPODIA versus ARUNACHAL PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
[2017] 9 S.C.R. 524
RIMA TAIPODIA
v.
ARUNACHAL PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION &
ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 12856of2017)
SEPTEMBER 14, 2017
(KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]
Service law - Appointment - Appellant-disabled candidate
C seeking appointment to the Group B post - Requirement of minimum
40% disability - Certificate on basis of which appellant appointed
not issued by the State Medical Board - Issuance of direction by
the High Court to the appellant to appear before the State Medical
Board for assessment of his disability - On examination, appellant
found to have total disability of only 33.9% - Held: Under the Rules,
D
it. is required to be certified that either a person is suffering from
permanent disabili!Ji where there are no chances of variation in the
degree of disability and if there is any chance of variatiOn in the
degree of disability, it should be indicated iii the Certificate that the
Certificate is for a particular period of validity - Certificate relied
E on· by the appellant not time bound, thus, no chances of variation
in the degree of disability- It was meant to be a permanent disability
- State Medical Board has assessed the disability to be below 40%,
which meant that the appellant did not have 40% disability, as
required under law - Thus, the State to take appropriate action, to
appoint the next person - Persons with Disabilities (Equal
F Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Rules,
1996.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 12856
of2017.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 02.04.2013 passed by
G the High Court of Gauhati, Itanagar Permanent Bench in Writ Appeal
No.06 (AP) 2012. -
H
Sanjay Parikh, Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Uday Manaktala,
Rajan Mani, Advs. for the Appellant.
524
•.
RIMA TAIPODIA v. ARUNACHAL PRADESH PUBLIC
· 525
SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS.
Ginnyu J. Raotray. Ms.Kanchim Kaur Dhodi, Ms. Bhawna Pal, A
Ms. Meenakshi Lekhi, Harish Pandey, Anil Shrivastav, Advs. for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KURIAN, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant is before this Court, aggrieved by the order dated
02.04.2013 passed by the Hig~ Court ofGauhati in Writ Appeal No. 06
of2012. The appellant has been directed by the High Court to appear
before the State Medical Board to have an assessment of his disability,
for the Group-B post, in which he sought appointment.
3. The requirement was minimum 40% disability. That disability is
to be verified under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,
Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Rules, 1996. Rules 4 and 5
read as follows:-
B
c
"4. Authorities to give Disability Certificate:- ( l) A Disability D
Certificate shall be issued by a Medical Board duly constituted by
the Central and the State Government.
(2) The State Government may constitute a Medical Board
consisting of at. least three members out of which at' least one
shall be a specialist in the particular field for assessing locomotor/
E
Visual including low vision/hearing and speech disability, mental
retardation and leprosy cured, as the case may be.
5. (I) The Medical Board shall, after due examination, give a
permanent Disability Certificate. in cases of such permanent
disabilities where there are no chances of variation in the degree · F
of disability.
(2) The Medical Board shall indicate the period of validity in the
certificate,. in cases ·where there is any chance of variation in the
degree of disability.
{3) No refusal of Disability Certificate shall be made unless an
G
opportunity is given to the applicant of being heard.
(4) On representation by the applicant, the Medical Board may
review its decision having regard to all the facts and circumstances
of the case and pass ·such order in the matter as it thinks fit."
H
526
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 9 S.C.R.
A
4. It is not in dispute that the appellant has never been examined
by the State Medical Board. The certificates, based on which the
appellant was appointed, were admittedly not issued by the State Medical
Board. Apparently, it is in this regard that the High Court directed the
appellant to appear before the State Medical Board.
B
5. On 26.04.2017, having regard to the submission that he would
appear before the State Medical Board, without prejudice to his
contentions, this Court passed the following order :-
"The petitioner has volunteered to appear beforExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.