The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.4191 of 2025 Prabhudatta Sahani ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Sukanta Kumar Mishra -versus- 1) State Of Odisha 2) Director Of Medical Education And Training, Odisha, Bhubaneswar, 3) Odisha Public Service Commission,,ctc 4) Medical Superintendent Of All India Institute Of Medical Science (aiims) Odisha ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Mr.S.K.Parhi, ASC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 13.02.2025 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2.
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. Perused the Writ Petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner with a prayer to quash the report dated 11.12.2024 submitted by Opposite Party No.4, which was obtained through R.T.I.
Decision
application on 23.12.2024 under Annexure-7 to the Writ Petition, and further to direct the opposite Parties to recruit the Petitioner to the post and services coming under the Odisha Civil Service Page 1 of 6. (Group-A and Group-B) 2022-23 and grant him all consequential service benefits as per advertisement under Annexure-1 as the Petitioner fulfils all the eligibility criteria for such appointment. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that pursuant to the advertisement dated 30.12.2022 for recruitment to the post under the Odisha Civil Service (Group-A and Group-B) for 2022-23, online applications were invited from desirous and eligible candidates. Accordingly, the Petitioner along with other eligible candidates participated in the recruitment process by uploading their online application forms. On conclusion of selection process, final select list was published on 19.10.2024. On perusal of the final select list, it appears that the name of the Petitioner has been included in the said final select list under Annexure-4 to the Writ Petition and his name finds place at sl.no.552 under SEBC Special category PWD with 42% permanent disability. The medical certificate which was submitted by the Petitioner under Annexure-2 to the Writ Petition although reveals the Petitioner is having 42% permanent disability, however, the Petitioner was sent for re-examination by the Medical Board. The Medical Board has certified that the disability of the Petitioner is 8%. Accordingly, the Petitioner was found ineligible under the PWD category. As a result of which, the candidature of the Petitioner has not been considered by the authority. Being aggrieved by such assessment of disability by the Medical Board and rejection of his candidature, the Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset contended that the disability certificate which has been filed along with online application of the Petitioner, reveals that the same has Page 2 of 6. been issued by the Medical Authority, Cuttack under the provisions of the relevant Statue and the Petitioner has been assessed to have 42% disability. On the basis of such certificate, the Petitioner submitted his application under the Special PWD category. Although initially, the Petitioner was found eligible and his name was included in the select list, however on reassessment by the Medical Board, it was found that the Petitioner has 8% disability and as such his candidature has been rejected. Learned counsel for the Petitioner seriously disputed the reassessment of the disability by the Medical Board. He further contended that the reassessment of the disability by the Medical Board and the reduction of percentage from 42% to 8% is absolutely baseless and erroneous. He further contended that the Petitioner is ready and willing to undergo further medical examination by a team of Doctors other than the Doctors who were parties to the earlier Medical Board. 6. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of similarly placed persons has also given direction for re-assessment of the disability. In the aforesaid context, he referred to the orders passed in W.P(C) No.9700 of 2024 (Sonali Pattanayak –v.- State of Odisha and others) disposed of on 05.08.2024 and also in W.P.(C) no.1619 of 2025 (Arabinda Ghosh –v.-State of Odisha and others) disposed on 22.01.2025. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that a right has accrued in favour of the Petitioners in view of the cases referred to herein above as their names were included in the final select list, whereafter this Court was pleased to direct the Opposite Parties to constitute a Medical Board Page 3 of 6. consisting of specialist of Doctors, who shall examine the Petitioners and reassess their disability in view of the conflicting opinion given by two different medical authorities. He further contended that although right to get appointment is not a fundamental right, however right to be considered for such appointment confers a right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the said context, the learned counsel or the Petitioner contended that the Opposite Parties, by their conduct, have definitely infringed the fundamental right that has been conferred on the Petitioner by the Constitution of India. 7. Learned Additional Standing counsel for the State on the other hand contended that on the basis of earlier disability certificate under Annexure-2, the candidature of the Petitioner was processed and on the basis of his eligibility, his name was included in the final select list and the Petitioner was asked to produce relevant documents. He further contended that as per the procedure, the cases of P.W.D. category candidates were sent to a duly constituted Medical Board for reassessment of the percentage of disability as has been indicated in the disability certificate. Accordingly the duly constituted Medical Board assessed the disability of the Petitioner at 8 %. As such the case of the Petitioner has not been considered pursuant to the notice under Annexure-1. In the said factual background, learned counsel for the State submitted that the Opposite Parties have not committed any illegality in rejecting the claim of the Petitioner for appointment pursuant to the advertisement under Annexure- 1. Hence, he prays that the Writ Petition be dismissed at the threshold. 8. Having heard learned counsels for the respective parties, Page 4 of 6. on careful analysis of their submissions and on further examination of the documents annexed to the Writ Petition, as well as on careful analysis of the orders relied upon by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and further keeping in view the fact that conflicting views have been taken by two different Medical authorities i.e. in the first Medical Certificate the disability is permanent in nature and the same is 42%, whereas the successive Medical Board has taken a view that the disability of the Petitioner is 8%, this Court is of the considered view that in the aforesaid factual background, the Petitioner is required to be re-examined as his name has found place in the final select list, otherwise the Petitioner would be deprived of an opportunity of getting any appointment to the post pursuant to the advertisement under Annexure-1. In such eventuality, no doubt the Petitioner’s right, as has been guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, is likely to be infringed. 9. In view of the aforesaid analysis of the facts of the case as well as keeping in view the documents annexed to the present Writ Petition, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the Writ Petition at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Parties to reconstitute the Medical Board by including the subject expert to re-examine and reassess the disability of the Petitioner. While constituting the Medical Board, the Doctors, who had participated in the earlier Board shall not be included in the Medical Board which is likely to be constituted. Accordingly, the Petitioner shall appear before the Medical Board on being noticed by the Medical Board so constituted and be examined considering the earlier disability certificate. After such reassessment, assessment certificate be issued by the Medical Page 5 of 6. Board to the authority and on the basis of fresh certificate of reassessment of the Petitioner’s disability, the case of the Petitioner shall be reconsidered. Further, it is directed that the entire process shall be concluded within eight weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order by the Petitoner. 10. It is further made clear that the Petitioner be kept informed at every stage by the authorities with proper communication to the Petitioner. 11. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. RKS ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Page 6 of 6. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RAMESH KUMAR SINGH Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 17-Feb-2025 14:22:10