STATE OF U.P. & ORS. versus RAVINDRA KUMAR SHARMA & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 2 S.C.R. 845 · Decided: 03-02-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.Y. EQBAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

(2016] 2 S.C.R. 845 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
v. 
RAVINDRA KUMAR SHARMA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 758of2016) 
FEBRUARY 03, 2016 
[M. Y. EQBAL AND ARUN MISHRA, JJ.] 
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of 
Rights and Full Participation) Rules, 1996 - Verification of the 
disability certificates issued by the Medical Board under - Right of 
the Government - On facts, complaint of illegal usurpation of the 
quota reserved for handicapped persons on the basis of fraudulently 
procured certificates without suffering from the disability certified 
under the Rules - On the basis thereof, issuance' of order by the 
Government for verification of such certificates issued by the 
Medical Board - Certificates of 21% of selected candidates of 
handicapped category found to be fraudulent - Challenge to -
Division Bench of the High Court holding that it is not permissible 
to reopen medical certificate carried out under the Rules - On 
appeal, held: 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 - There was no scope for the Division Bench to 
interfere and issue order to perpetuate fraud - Order passed by the 
Division Bench of the High Court set aside. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
HELD: 1.1 Fraud vitiates and in such a case when large 
F 
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. [Para 6] [848-F-G] 
1.2 The Division Bench of the High Court ignored and 
overlooked the material fact that verific:ition had already been 
G 
done by the Medical Board and it was found that certificates of 
21 % were fraudulently obtained. The High Court issued a 
direction in the impugned order for physical verification of the 
candidate by the authorities and in case he does not suffer from 
disability so certified candidate can be subjected to fresh medical 
845 
H 
846 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
test. The High Court overlooked that on mere physical 
verification it may not be possible to know various kinds of 
disabilities such as that of eyes, ear impairment etc. That can 
only be done by the medical examination and particularly when 
the High Court itself observed that in case there is genuine 
B 
c 
suspicion and fraud has been committed medical certification can 
be reopened. In the peculiar facts of the instant case of such a 
fraud and genuine suspicion raised in the representation lodged 
by the VS 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. The impugned judgment and order passed by 
• the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside and the writ 
petition is dismissed. [Paras 10, 11, 12] [851-B-G] 
D 
E 
F 
Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar v. State of Maharashtra & 
Ors. (2005) 7 SCC 605:2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 774; Ram 
Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi (2003) 8 SCC 319: 2003 
(4) Suppl. SCR 543; Express Newspapers (P) Ltd& Ors. 
v, Union of India & Ors. (1986) 1 SCC 133: 1985 (3) 
Suppl. SCR 382 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 774 
2003 ( 4 ) Suppl. SCR 543 
1985 (3 ) Suppl. SCR 382 
referred to 
Para 7 
referred to 
Para 8 
referred to 
Para 9 
C!VlLAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 758 of 
2016. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.09.20 l 0 of the High Court 
Allahabad at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 811 of2010. 
M. R. Shamshad. 'vlr. Shashank Singh, Ms. Harshita Deswal,Advs. 
for appellants. 
G 
R. Venkatramani, Pallav Shishodia, Sr. Advs., Raj iv Kumar,Abishek 
H 
Srivastava, (For Ms. Kusum Chaudhaty) Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, 
Advs. for Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Cou1~t was delivered by 
ARUN MISHRA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. RAVINDRA KUMAR SHARMA & 
ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.l 
2. The question involved in the appeal is as to the right of the 
appellant to verify the disability certificates issued by the Medical Board 
under the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, 
Protection of Rights and Full Pa1ticipation) Rules, 1996. The respondents 
applied for BTC training course under the physically handicapped 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.