The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WA No.414 of 2025 Manas Ranjan Sahu …. Appellant Represented by Adv.– Mr. J. Biswal, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha and others …. Respondents
Legal Reasoning
Represented by Adv.– Mr. D. Tripathy, A.G.A. CORAM: HON’ BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No.
Decision
ORDER 08.07.2025 01. 1. Pursuant to the advertisement dated 24th October, 2019, the appellant offered his candidature for the post of an Attendant in the Office of the Chief District Medical Officer (CDMO), Kendrapara under the PWD category. Since the advertisement mandates the disability certificate to be appended to the application, the appellant furnished the certificate issued by the CDMO, Kendrapara indicating the disability to the extent of 45%. Page 1 of 6 2. Obviously, the disability pertains to a locomotor disability and the advertisement postulates that the person can offer his candidature under the PWD category, if such disability is more than 40%. Though the application filed by the appellant was accepted by the authorities, but subsequently, as the Rules mandate, the appellant was directed to undergo the examination by the Medical Board constituted by the Selection Committee. 3. Undeniably, the appellant underwent the examination by the Medical Board consisting of three Members, one of which was the Professor and Head of the Department of Orthopedic in SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack. The Board opined that the locomotor disability as claimed by the appellant is only 10% which is temporary in nature. Since the appellant did not accept the report of the Medical Board, an application was made before the authority to constitute an Appellate Medical Board in terms of the relevant Rules applicable in this regard. The Appellate Medical Board was also constituted and the appellant was re-examined and the report of the disability indicates that the appellant suffers from 21% locomotor permanent disability. Page 2 of 6 4. Since the appellant does not meet the statutory requirement of minimum 40% disability, his candidature was not considered under the said PWD category. The appellant challenged both the medical reports submitted by the Medical Board as well as the Appellate Medical Board by filing the writ petition before this Court. 5. The single Bench dismissed the said writ petition accepting the report of the Appellate Medical Board which is assailed in the instant letter patent appeal primarily on the ground that one of the Member of the Appellate Medical Board was the Member of the Medical Board and, therefore, it casts a cloud on the fairness and/or transparency in ascertaining the percentage of disability suffered by the appellant. An ancillary point is also taken that once the CDMO, Kendrapara has issued the certificate showing the disability to the extent of 45%, in absence of any allegation of the forged or fabricated certificate having submitted, the appellant cannot be penalized for the same. 6. It is no doubt true that the authorities have not taken a point that the certificate submitted by the appellant at the time of offering his candidature is forged, fabricated and/or manufactured for such purpose. The Rules and the conditions enshrined in the advertisement Page 3 of 6 provides for a constitution of the Medical Board to ascertain the extent of the locomotor disability or a disability of any other nature, which cannot be construed as a mere exercise, but to ensure that the genuine candidates who comes under the purview of the PWD category are not deprived of the employment. 7. Once the Rules provide for constitution of a Medical Board which was pressed in action by the authority and the appellant underwent the examination, it is too late in a day to contend that the authorities cannot disbelieve the certificate submitted by the appellant at the time of offering his candidature. The Medical Board found the disability of a temporary nature to the extent of 10% which was reevaluated by the Appellate Medical Board by opining that the disability suffered by the appellant is permanent in nature, but to the extent of 21%. 8. The Court should not interfere with the decision of an expert who has a knowledge and acumen in a particular field unless it is demonstrative by a convincing material that the method adopting by such expert is dehors the set norms recognized in such specific field. The assessment of disability is within the domain of an expert and the moment the uniform decision is taken by a Committee of the Page 4 of 6 experts, there is hardly any scope for interference under the power of judicial review. The moment the provisions are made that despite the certificate given by a Doctor of the hospital, the Selection Committee may refer the candidate to the Medical Board, we do not find any illegality and/or infirmity in the same. Apart from the same, the appellant underwent the examination conducted by the Medical Board as well as Appellate Medical Board and, therefore, it is too late in a day to take a rebound in contending that unless the authority found that the certificate submitted by the appellant at the time of an application is forged and fabricated, there is no scope for any different view to be taken by the authority. 9. As indicated above, it is not the question of any forged or fabricated document relating to the percentage of the disability, but the evaluation and/or ascertainment of the percentage of the disability which may differ from one to another. Since the Medical Board was constituted, we thus do not find any illegality and/or infirmity on the part of the authority in taking the report so submitted as sacrosanct. 10. So far as the contention of the appellant that one of the Member of the Appellate Medical Board was also the Member of the Page 5 of 6 Medical Board is concerned, we do not find any substance in it because of the fact that he being one of the Member of the Appellate Board cannot command the decision of the other four Members who occupy a high position in the health sector. The Appellate Medical Board took a unanimous decision in assessing the percentage of the locomotor disability even if it differs from the opinion of the Medical Board does not invalidate the same. 11. We thus do not find that there is any point warranting the interference with the impugned order. The appeal is thus dismissed. No order as to costs. Chief Justice (Harish Tandon) Judge S.K. Guin/PA (M.S. Raman) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBASH KUMAR GUIN Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 15-Jul-2025 12:48:41 Page 6 of 6