BENCH AT JAIPUR v. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan

Judgment

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Jaipur Road Ajmer.

3. Superintendent, Sawai Man Singh Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. Sudhir Yadav, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. M. F. Baig, Adv. with Mr. Govind Gupta, Adv. Mr. Rahul Verma, Adv. for Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 13/03/2026

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner questioning order dated 15.12.2025 issued by the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, whereby the petitioner was directed to appear before the Medical Board of Sawai Man Singh Hospital for her medical/disability examination. Learned counsel submits that respondent-RPSC issued advertisement dated

28.06.2023 for holding Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services combined competitive examination. Learned counsel submits that petitioner, since possessing the disability certificate issued by the [2026:RJ-JP:10617] (2 of 6) [CW-4167/2026] Competent Authority certifying the percentage of disability of the petitioner as 46%, submitted her application form as specially abled person and after undergoing the recruitment process, she was also selected and was subjected to re-examination of her disability by duly constituted board, which certified that the petitioner was suffering from 48% disability. Learned counsel submits that thus, the certificate already possessed by the petitioner was further confirmed by the Medical Board constituted by the respondent-RPSC, however, in quite arbitrary manner in the garb of formal health checkup, the petitioner was again subjected to disability examination and although, the examination conducting body has re-affirmed the disability of the petitioner, during the alleged health examination, without there being any authority, it was allegedly found that the petitioner is not suffering from prescribed bench mark disability. Although, nothing has been given in writing in this regard, yet the respondents are not treating the petitioner to be an eligible and entitled candidate for appointment under specially abled category. Learned counsel submits that subjecting a candidate for disability examination time and again is not only arbitrary but also atrocious for specially abled person, therefore, only on the basis of report of Medical Board, as obtained by RPSC, respondent-DOP ought to have treated the petitioner as specially abled person and accordingly, appointment should be given to the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel appearing for RPSC has stated that after conducting the entire process, the RPSC has recommended name of the petitioner for further consideration of DOP. [2026:RJ-JP:10617] (3 of 6) [CW-4167/2026]

3. Learned counsel appearing for DOP submits that DOP has issued general circular dated 23.08.2025, whereby general directions have been given in respect of appointment to be given to specially abled person and it has been directed that before giving appointment, each and every disabled person is to be re- examined by the Medical Board and in case, his/her disability is confirmed by the Board, only then appointment is to be given to such candidate.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. The petitioner has placed on record unique disability ID issued by the Competent Authority showing her disability to be 46% as well as the document whereby, the Medical Board constituted by RPSC during the course of recruitment, has also certified that the petitioner suffers from 48% the physically disability. In normal circumstances, such certificate issued by the Medical Board constituted by RPSC ought to be honoured by the respondent-DOP, however, it appears that in past so many years, the certificates possessed by the candidates, who claimed appointment under specially abled person were found to be not genuine or were having discrepancies qua percentage of disability, therefore, a policy decision has been taken by the respondent- Government for re-examining the disability of the aspirant, who is claiming appointment under the above reserved category. Such policy decision of the State Government has already been examined by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a batch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ petition No. 15370/2025 (Ramprakash Kharlwa vs. The Director, Elementary Education & [2026:RJ-JP:10617] (4 of 6) [CW-4167/2026] Others) and vide judgment dated 27.01.2026, following observations and directions have been issued: "60. The State Government or the recruiting agency has every right to assess or reassess the case of benchmark disability and direct the candidate(s) to undergo assessment or reassessment of disability in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government of India under Section 56 of the RPwD Act, 2016. The assessment has to be made by the designated certifying authorities as declared under Chapter X of the RPwD Act. A designated certifying authority cannot issue any certificate, which is not in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government of India under Section 56 of the RPwD Act, 2016. A designated certifying authority is not competent to issue a disability certificate beyond its jurisdiction, as determined by the State Government.

61. The State Government or the recruiting agency may direct anyone, whether an employee who secured a job on the basis of a disability certificate or a candidate who appeared to claim a reservation quota under the RPwD Act, 2016, to appear before any designated authority to assess or reassess the disability of such person.

62. Thus, the writ petitions are disposed of in following manner:- (i) The petitioner(s) have no right to challenge the assessment or reassessment order issued by the State Government or the respondent(s) for reassessment of benchmark disability. No person is entitled to be considered for appointment on seat reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities, unless his/her benchmark disability is assessed as per Chapter-X of the RPwD Act, 2016. (ii) The respondent(s) are free to assess or reassess the benchmark disability of the petitioner(s) in accordance with the provisions of the RPwD Act, 2016, and such assessment shall be made in accordance with the guidelines framed by the Government of India in exercise of powers under Section 56 of the RPWD Act, 2016. (iii) Any certificate issued by any Medical Board or Medical Officer, not designated as a certifying authority under Section 57 of the RPwD Act, is invalid and illegal, and the same cannot be relied upon for availing any benefit under the RPwD Act, 2016 or the rules made thereunder. (iv) The respondent(s) including recruiting agencies are directed to ensure that the certification process conforms to the standards as prescribed by the Government of India under the RPwD Act, 2016 and the rules made thereunder. (v) The State Government is also under an obligation to notify the designated certifying authorities along with their jurisdiction for issuance of certificates under Section 2 (r), 2(s) or 2(t) to declare a person as having a disability or a benchmark disability, or person with high support needs. (vi) After assessment or reassessment of in service candidate(s), if the respondent(s) find that the candidate [2026:RJ-JP:10617] (5 of 6) [CW-4167/2026] does not have a benchmark disability as required under the Act of 2016, then they are free to take any action as discussed herein-above. (vii) If a candidate appears in a recruitment process on the basis of benchmark disability, then the recruiting agency is duty-bound to assess or reassess his benchmark disability through a designated certifying authority as notified under Section 57 of the RPwD Act, 2016, and such assessment has to be made strictly on the basis of guidelines issued by the Government of India under Section 56 of the RPwD Act, 2016. (viii) The petitioner(s) are not entitled to any protection under the law but any action against them shall be taken or intiated only after re-assessment of their benchmark disability under the directions of the respondent(s) by following the procedure as prescribed under Chapter X of the RPWD Act, 2016."

6. As the petitioner has raised serious objections with regard to the veracity and validity of the process adopted by DOP for re-examining disability of the petitioner through SMS Hospital, with the consent of the parties, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of in following manner.

7. The respodnent-DOP shall request Superintendent AIIMS, Jodhpur for constituting Medical Board of three independent experts for examining the disability of the petitioner and in that regard a notice shall also be issued to the petitioner for appearing before AIIMS, Jodhpur for necessary examination. After examination, the Medical Board of AIIMS shall issue certificate revealing the nature and extent of physical disability, if any, sustained by the petitioner. In case, the Medical Board of AIIMS, Jodhpur certifies that the physical disability of the petitioner is at par or more than the bench mark disability as prescribed under the Rules, then the respondents shall issue appointment order to the petitioner, however, in case, even the Medical Board of AIIMS, Jodhpur does not treat the petitioner to be a specially abled person possessing the bench mark disability then the petitioner shall have no right to seek appointment. [2026:RJ-JP:10617] (6 of 6) [CW-4167/2026]

8. It is made clear that the aforesaid exercise shall be undertaken urgently and within a period of 7 days from today, looking to the fact that the respondents are in the process of issuing appointment order pursuant to selection.

9. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. Jatin /16 (ANAND SHARMA),J