The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No.1754 of 2023 State of Odisha and others …. Appellants Mr. D. Mohanty, AGA -versus- Sisir Kumar Sahoo and others …. Respondents Mr. J. Biswal, Advocate CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD HON’BLE JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO Order No. 05. 1. 2.
Decision
ORDER 17.07.2025 This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. State and its functionaries are in this intra-Court appeal for laying a challenge to learned Single Judge’s order dated 15.03.2023, whereby respondents’ W.P.(C) No.22896 of 2015 having been favoured, the order dated 16.10.2015, whereby they were disengaged, has been quashed with a direction to reinstate them in service within a period of six weeks. 3. Learned AGA appearing for the State and its functionaries vehemently argues that pursuant to the direction of learned Single Judge an inquiry was undertaken, and that report of the inquiry suggested that the vision impairment certificates, based on which appointment was secured to the post of Sikshya Sahayak, were not genuine; when appointment has been secured by fraud & fabrication, as has been evidenced by the inquiry report, no relief could have been granted to the respondents; learned Single Judge grossly erred in construing the inquiry report as not establishing Page 1 of 5 fabrication of documents and therefore the indulgence of this Court is eminently warranted. In the course of submission, he took us through the contents of the inquiry report and rested his case. 4. Learned counsel representing the Respondent-employee, per contra, made submission in justification of impugned order of the learned Single Judge and reasons on which it has been structured. He contended that there is absolutely no case of fabrication of the subject vision impairment certificates, they have been duly issued by the competent authorities under the extant Rules; the degree of ocular impairment of his clients is more than 40%; even the inquiry report supports this view and also the genuineness of visual impairment certificates; lastly learned Single Judge having seen everything has granted relief which does not require interference, so contending he seeks dismissal of the appeal. 5. Foundational fact matrix: 5.1. Selection & appointment are of the 2011-12; out of 257 vacancies notified, 22 were earmarked for persons physically handicapped. Respondents being visually impaired persons having 40% above ocular disability came to be selected and they were issued appointment orders dated 02.04.2011 as Sikshya Sahayak. In WP(C) No. 25903 of 2011 disposed of on 05.05.2015, a learned Single Judge of this Court had directed and according an inquiry as to fabrication of physical impairment certificates was held. The Vigilance Department observed that the certificates were not genuine/fabricated. 5.2. The Collector of the district vide order dated 16.10.2015 disengaged them amongst others. Respondents have filed the Page 2 of 5 subject writ petition, which the learned Single Judge allowed and quashed disengagement order coupled with a direction to reinstate them in service in the prescribed period. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the matter for the following reasons: 6.1. The first submission of learned AGA that the visual impairment certificates are fabricated and therefore the appointments secured on their basis should be voided, is bit difficult to agree with. The inquiry report, as rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, not only does not support such a contention but to an extent adumbrates the contention to the contrary. Merely because the entries were not made in the Issue Register of the certificates, one cannot hastily jump to the conclusion that the very certificates themselves are fabricated. 6.2. The allegation of fraud & fabrication are to be vouched by cogent evidence. Very significantly, regardless of entries in the Issue Register, the authors/signatories of the certificates were not confronted as to their authorship. Had it been done, the truth would have trickled out- one way or the other. The inquiry report, which runs into pages, lacks the focus. Learned counsel for the employees is right in drawing our attention to internal pages-6, 7 & 8 to the effect that these respondents were held to have required percentage of ocular disability even in the subsequent test, although little diminution in percentage was noticed. However, what is relevant is the impairment value as on the date of selection and not what happened subsequently. Page 3 of 5 6.3. The vehement submission of learned AGA that the inquiry report is an opinion of the experts and therefore it should be entitled to due weightage, is true. However, an expert opinion is not the gospel truth; in each case Court must decide the evidentiary value of expert opinion after examining all circumstances which the experts have taken into account while forming such an opinion. It cannot be gainfully argued that the expert opinion should be invariably agreed to, disregarding other evidentiary material based on which the said opinion is formed. What we are considering is the expert opinion as a piece of evidence and not a conclusive evidence. The value of expert evidence under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 depends upon largely on the cogency of the reason on which it is based. The opinion of an expert by itself may be relevant is true, but would carry little weight with a Court, unless it is supported by a clear statement of what he noticed and on what he based his opinion. The expert should, if he expects his opinion to be accepted, put before the Court all the materials which promoted him to come to his conclusion so that the Court, although not an expert, may form its own judgment on those materials vide Mt. Title v. Alfred, AIR 1934 All 273. The sages of law have said that Courts are experts of expert vide Laxmi Kanta Mandal v. Minor Achintya Mandal, (1994) SCC OnLine Cal 24. 6.4. Learned Single Judge having adverted to all the facts & circumstances of the case, including the inquiry report, has formed a reasonable opinion in his accumulated wisdom that there is absolutely no case of fraud & fabrication. Nobody has been examined as to what was the procedure followed in making entries in Issue Register, while issuing ocular impairment certificates. At Page 4 of 5 times, it is not uncommon to see the cases wherein documents are registered and corresponding entries are not made as to registration. It is presumable that such a thing has happened in this case. Certificates are genuine, but corresponding entries are not made in the concerned Register. In the above circumstances, this appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be and according rejected, costs having been made easy. (Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge Madhusmita (Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA MALLICK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 22-Jul-2025 11:06:30 Page 5 of 5