Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1520 (RAJ)

DESH CHAMAN SINGH MEHRAT v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2015-08-13

AJIT SINGH, SUNIL AMBWANI

body2015
JUDGMENT : 1. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. This Special Appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge, dated 09.02.2015, by which she has dismissed the writ petition after calling for the report of the Medical Board with regard to disability suffered by the appellant, and his suitability for efficient discharge of work as 'Patwari', considering his disability. 3. The appellant had applied for the post of 'Patwari' in pursuance to an advertisement dated 19.02.2013, inviting applications for the Direct Recruitment Patwari Competitive Examination, 2013, in the category of OBC. He had passed the written examination and was called for counselling with all the documents. An appointment order was issued on 08.01.2014, appointing him on the post of 'Patwari' on probation for a period of two years, with direction to join the training from 08.01.2014. The Officer-in-Charge Land Records, Ajmer, passed an order on 07.02.2014, directing the appellant to get himself medically examined from the Government Jawahar Lal Nehru Hospital, Ajmer. After examination, the Medical Board issued a certificate on 11.02.2014, assessing the disability of the appellant to the extent of 40% 'Component locomotor disability in right arm'. This certificate of disability should have satisfied the Officer-in-Charge, Land Records, Ajmer. He however issued a notice to the appellant on 23.04.2014 as to why his appointment may not be cancelled, having been found disabled to the extent of 40%. The appellant replied to the notice stating that the assessment of the Medical Jurist was not proper. On 14.08.2014, the District Collector, Ajmer, passed an order cancelling the appointment of the appellant as 'Patwari' on the ground that he was not fit to discharge his duties as 'Patwari'. On 07.01.2015, learned Single Judge referred the matter to a Medical Board of three doctors in SMS Hospital, Jaipur, which submitted its report dated 15.01.2015, as under:- “To, The Registrar(Judicial) Hon'ble High Court Rajasthan, Jaipur Through Medical Superintendent SMS Hospital, Jaipur Sub: Regarding disability certificate of Mr. Desh Chaman Singh Mehrat S/o Late Shri Ghisa Singh, aged 41 years, by caste Mehrat(Kathat), resident of Badiya Shyama(Thousala) Post Jaliya-I, Tehsil Beawar District Ajmer. Ref. SB. CIVIL WRIT PETITION 9244/2014 dated 7-1-2015 of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court Jaipur. That in above mentioned case after complete physical evaluation of Mr. Desh Chaman Singh. Desh Chaman Singh Mehrat S/o Late Shri Ghisa Singh, aged 41 years, by caste Mehrat(Kathat), resident of Badiya Shyama(Thousala) Post Jaliya-I, Tehsil Beawar District Ajmer. Ref. SB. CIVIL WRIT PETITION 9244/2014 dated 7-1-2015 of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court Jaipur. That in above mentioned case after complete physical evaluation of Mr. Desh Chaman Singh. We the member's of Medical Board are of opinion that the total permanent physical disability is 89.67% (eight nine. Sixty seven %) and as per advertisement he is not suitable for efficient discharge of job of Patwari. The dis is evaluated on based on guidelines & Gazette notification issued by ministry of social justice & empowerment, GOI in June 2001. sd/- Dr. R.C. Bansiwal Professor & Unit Head Dept. of Orthopedic sd/- Dr. D.K. Sharma Associate Professor Dept. of Forensic Medicine sd/- Dr. Keshav Dev Assistant Professor Dept. of RRC” 5. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appellant's disability had been assessed at 89.67%, and thus, he is not suitable for the efficient discharge of his job as 'Patwari'. 6. In order to appreciate the contention of learned counsel for the appellant challenging the assessment of disability suffered by the appellant and the opinion of the Medical Board that the appellant is not suitable for efficient discharge of his job as Patwari, we requested him to call the appellant in person in the Court. 7. Today, the appellant has presented himself. He walked easily without any difficulty upto the podium. He cannot lift his right hand, which appears to be non-functional. He however could write his name clearly with his left hand, on the writing pad, provided by us, without any difficulty and answered the questions put by us on his work without any difficulty. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had suffered an injury while he was in Army, and on which he was discharged from the Armed Forces. The standards of fitness in the Army are however much rigorous than the civil services. There can be no such requirement for the job of 'Patwari'. The appellant's disability is not such that he may not be able to discharge his duties. We are unable to understand, as to in what manner the Medical Board, assessed his total permanent disability at 89.67% and opined that he is not suitable for job of Patwari. 9. There can be no such requirement for the job of 'Patwari'. The appellant's disability is not such that he may not be able to discharge his duties. We are unable to understand, as to in what manner the Medical Board, assessed his total permanent disability at 89.67% and opined that he is not suitable for job of Patwari. 9. The Rajasthan Employment of the Persons with Disability Rules, 2000, provides reservation in the jobs for differently abled persons, having disability of 40% The appellant had produced the medical certificate, issued by an Orthopedic Surgeon of the Government Hospital, Ajmer, assessing 40% 'Component locomotor disability in his right arm'. A Professor of the Orthopedic Department, Jawahar Lal Nehru Aayurvighyan Mahavidhyalaya, Pant Chikitsalaya, Jawahar Lal Nehru Hospital, Ajmer, had assessed the disability of the appellant and had also opined that: 'Subject is fit to join Probation trainee Patwari under Physical Handicap Quota.” 10. We have examined the note (c) to the advertisement dated 19.02.2013, which provides that the State Government has, under the Rajasthan Employment of the Persons with Disability Rules, 2000, identified the posts for the disabled persons, and that a Committee under Rule 5 of the Rules of 2000, has not identified the post of 'Patwari' for the purposes of disabled persons. 11. Prima-facie, we find that the Medical Board, SMS Hospital, Jaipur, in its report dated 15.01.2015, quoted as above, had, while disagreeing with the report of the Orthopedic Surgeon, Jawahar Lal Nehru Hospital, Ajmer, obtained earlier by the appellant, not given any reasons for their observations, assessing the disability of the appellant at 89.67% and his suitability for the job. 12. On visual observation of the physical condition of the appellant and on the test of writing, we do not find that the appellant suffers from any such permanent disability, which may be assessed at 89.67%. This however, in our observations made on the appearance of the appellant, cannot be the basis to disapprove the report of the Medical Board. The physical appearance of the appellant and the fact that he had completed the entire training as 'Patwari' without any adverse report, and his ability to walk and write, do not, in our opinion, amount to assessment of his disability at 89.67%, and apparently, his disability does qualify him to do the job of 'Patwari', which mainly requires field surveys and preparation of the reports. The identification of disabilities for the work as 'Patwari', also appears to be prima-facie illegal and requires reconsideration. 13. In the facts and circumstances, we allow the Special Appeal, and while setting aside the order of learned Single Judge, dated 09.02.2015, request her to re-examine the matter, both, for the purposes of assessment of his disability, the assessment on such disability for performance of his duties and responsibilities for the job of 'Patwari' and the notification which does not identify the job of 'Patwari' for any category of disabled (differently abled) persons. Learned Single Judge is requested to decide the matter, expeditiously. 14. It will be open to the appellant, if he is so advised, to amend the writ petition and challenge the report of the Committee, by which it did not identify the post of 'Patwari' for the physically challenged (differently abled) persons.