JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri J.N. Maurya learned Chief Standing Counsel alongwith Sri Suresh Kumar Maurya learned counsel for the appellant. 2. List has been revised. None appears for the respondents. 3. Present intra court appeal arises from the judgment and order of the learned single judge dated 20.3.2024 passed in Writ-A No.2941 of 2020 (Anusuiya Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others) and connected writ petition (Neutral Citation - 2024: AHC : 53230), whereby the learned single judge has allowed the writ petition on the following terms: "41. Accordingly, Writ-A No. 8011 of 2020 is allowed. The order dated 13.03.2020 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Firozabad is quashed. Direction is issued to District Basic Education Officer, Firozabad to allow the petitioner to join on the post of Assistant Teacher in a Primary School at District Firozabad within three weeks from the date of service of certified copy of this order and to pay her salary regularly. It is further provided that since petitioner has not worked as Assistant Teacher in the Primary School at District Firozabad therefore, she is not entitled for the salary for the period from 13.03.2020 till the date of her reinstatement in service but the aforesaid period shall be counted towards service rendered by the petitioner for all other service benefits." 4. According to the learned counsel for the respondent-appellant, the facts giving rise to the present proceeding are, the original petitioner suffered a fracture injury in an accidental occurrence in the year 1995. She claimed locomotor disability arising from shortening of leg. Later, on 20.07.2006 she was issued Disability Certificate No. 1549, by the Chief Medical Officer, Firozabad certifying 50% locomotor disability. On the strength of that certificate, she applied and was admitted to Special BTC Training Course 2007. Consequently, she was issued Certificate (of successful completion of such training), on 22.6.2009. Thereafter, she was appointed against the post of Assistant Teacher, at a primary school on 03.7.2009. She has continued in service from then, till 30 March 2020. 5. In the meantime, arising from a complaint/s received from certain sections of the society, the State Government issued Government Order dated 10.11.2009 disclosing its policy decision requiring the candidates appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher on the strength of Disability Certificate issued, to re-appear before a fresh Medical Board constituted for that purpose and to get their disability re-verified, medically. The said Government Order was challenged in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 53152 of 2010 ( Ravindra Kumar Sharma and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others ). It was dismissed on the following terms: "Under the scheme of things provided for, petitioners have been issued certificates by the Medical Board and the said certificates have been made foundation and basis to apply under the physically handicapped category, avail benefits admissible, and such benefits have been availed by the petitioners. The State Government, in its wisdom, has taken decision that all such incumbents, who have got selection based on disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, verification be got done, only for the purposes of verification and all such candidates have been called to appear before the Medical Board. The authority of the State Government in no way has been diluted under the Rules that the State Government cannot get verification proceedings done by the Medical Board, once based on the disability certificates benefits and facilities have been availed and the incumbents have become teachers in institution run and managed by Basic Shiksha Parishad. Exercise of verification is being undertaken to see and ensure as to whether certifications, which has been made, is as per physical verification and real beneficiaries are there and imposters have not crept therein. Once certificate in question has been validly issued in favour of petitioners and exercise is being undertaken by the State Government to see that benefit has been rightly availed, and for the said purpose Medical Board has been constituted only to see and ensure that, in physical verification, certificate issued is in consonance with the disability certificate, then to say that the State Government is not empowered to issue such directive for carrying out and such exercise cannot be accepted for the simple reason that sub-rule (6) of Rule 4 of the aforementioned Rules of 1996 clearly mentions that the said certificate will make such person eligible to apply for facilities, concessions and benefits admissible, but same is not absolute one and it is subject to such conditions as the Central or the State Government may impose. Once benefit has been availed and the benefit of certificate issued by the Medical Board has been extended, the State Government has right to get the verification proceedings done, as it is not absolute right, but subject to such conditions to be imposed by the State Government. There is no lack of authority in the decision taken by the State Government qua the verification proceedings. Consequently, writ petition fails and the same is dismissed." 6. The above order of the learned single judge was challenged in Special Appeal No. 811 of 2010 ( Ravindra Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and Others ). That was disposed of with the following observations: "6. Having considered the rival submissions, it is evident that the Director has proceeded to call upon the Principals of all the Training Institutes throughout the State of Uttar Pradesh to intimate all candidates of the physically handicapped category that a physical verification in respect of such candidates shall be carried out by a Medical Board, which has been nominated by the State Government and the same would be conducted from 26th of July, 2010 onwards. The said direction has been issued for a physical verification in order to ascertain the genuineness of the candidates as also the contents of the certificates, which have been taken aid of to avail admission and appointment by the appellants. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of the Rules, 1996 indicates that the State Government can constitute a Medical Board and the said Medical Board is authorized to issue a medical certificate for the purposes of certifying the disability. The appellants contend that they are in possession of such certificates, which are valid and, therefore, there is no occasion to subject them to further medical examination by another Medical Board under the Government Order dated 3rd of November, 2009. 7. We may clarify that the process adopted by the State Government for physical verification is for the limited purpose to ascertain the genuineness of the candidates and the certificates, which have been so issued. In our opinion, the candidates cannot be subjected to a further medical examination for the purpose of issuance of a certificate. 8. There is a presumption of validity of a certificate issued in accordance with the Rules, 1996 so long as nothing to the contrary is detected and established. In our opinion, the candidates cannot be subjected to a further medical examination for the purpose of issuance of a certificate. 8. There is a presumption of validity of a certificate issued in accordance with the Rules, 1996 so long as nothing to the contrary is detected and established. There cannot be a permission in law to make a fishing and roving enquiry for subjecting a candidate to repetitive medical tests unless there is any genuine suspected or detected fraud or misrepresentation perceived by the authority. There may be cases of gross irregularities in certification against the norms prescribed for assessing physical disability, but it has to be on the basis of a bona fide approach and not an attempt to simply re-open the medical certification that has been carried out as envisaged under the Rules. 9. If however, upon a physical verification, the authorities come to the conclusion that the candidate has not been genuinely issued a certificate of disability or otherwise or that he does not suffer from any disability so certified, which entitles him to such a certificate, then and in that event only, a candidate can be subjected to a fresh Medical Board and not otherwise. 10. The appellants, therefore, cannot resist the physical verification as directed by the respondents and, we accordingly, hold that the direction dated 15th of July, 2010 would be construed as indicated hereinabove. 11. The respondents would, therefore, initially limit the enquiry of physical verification to the extent indicated above, and in case, any error or fraud or misrepresentation or gross irregularity is detected, then the candidates could be subjected to a fresh Medical Board or any other enquiry, as may be permissible under the rules. To that extent, the communication dated 15th of July, 2010 read with the Government Order dated 3rd of November, 2009 stands explained and the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 31st of August, 2010 stands modified, accordingly. 12. The appeal stands disposed of subject to the observations made hereinabove. No order as to costs."(Emphasis supplied) 7. The State carried the matter to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 758 of 2016 ( State of U.P. and Others Vs. Ravindra Kumar Sharma and Others ). That appeal was allowed with the following observations: "10. 12. The appeal stands disposed of subject to the observations made hereinabove. No order as to costs."(Emphasis supplied) 7. The State carried the matter to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 758 of 2016 ( State of U.P. and Others Vs. Ravindra Kumar Sharma and Others ). That appeal was allowed with the following observations: "10. The Division Bench of the High Court has ignored and overlooked the material fact that verification has already been done by the Medical Board and it has been found that certificates of 21% were fraudulently obtained. The High Court has issued a direction in the impugned order for physical verification of the candidate by the authorities and in case he does not suffer from disability so certified candidate can be subjected to fresh medical test. The High Court has overlooked that on mere physical verification it may not be possible to know various kinds of disabilities such as that of eyes, ear impairment etc. That can only be done by the medical examination and particularly when the High Court itself has observed that in case there is genuine suspicion and fraud has been committed medical certification can be reopened. Direction issued in this regard has not been questioned by the respondents and in fact process of re-verification was already over when High Court issued aforesaid directions. 11. In our considered opinion in the peculiar facts of this case of such a fraud and genuine suspicion raised in the representation lodged by the Viklang Sangh and when 21% of such certificates have been found to be fraudulently obtained there was no scope for the Division Bench to interfere and issue order to perpetuate fraud, writ is to be declined in such a scenario and no equity can be claimed by the respondents. 12. In the circumstance we set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court and dismiss the writ petition. However before taking any action against the individuals they shall be issued show cause in the matter and thereafter decision will be rendered in accordance with law. Let this exercise be completed within a period of four months. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent." 8. At present it is not the case of the respondent-appellant that the Disability Certificate (on which strength appointment was gained by the original petitioner), is forged or fraudulently obtained. Let this exercise be completed within a period of four months. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent." 8. At present it is not the case of the respondent-appellant that the Disability Certificate (on which strength appointment was gained by the original petitioner), is forged or fraudulently obtained. The thrust of the submission is, the degree of disability claimed by the original petitioner, in the original Disability Certificate dated 20.07.2006, is excessive. He has relied on the notice dated 21.9.2010 wherein it was observed as below: (Emphasis supplied) 9. In her response, the original petitioner had stated as below: " ... ????????? - ???? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ? ?????????????????????? ?????????? ????? ???? ? ??? ????????? ?????????? ??????????????????????? ?????? ?????????????????????? ????????????? ?????????? ????? ??????? ??????????? ???? ???? ??? ?????????? ??????????????? ??? ?????????????????? ????????? - ???? - 1549 ???????????? 26-07-2006 ????????? ?????????????????? ??? ???????? ?? ????????????????????? ?????????? ??????? ???? ??????????????? ?? 50 ??????? ????????????? ?????????? ???? ?? ?????? ?????????????????????? ?????????????????? ?????????? ??? ??????? ?? ????????? ???? ??????????? ??????? ?? ??? ???????????? ????????? ??? ????? ??????? ? ?? , ??? ????????? ??? ?????????????????? ? ????? ???? ?? ???????? ? ???? ??????????????? ??? ???????? - ???????? ????? ??????? ?????????? ? ???? ? ??? ??? ?????? ????? ???? …" (emphasis supplied) 10. The proceeding remained pending. Upon the decision of the Supreme Court, fresh notice appears to have been issued on 24.5.2016 with reference to the order passed by the Supreme Court (extracted above). 11. In that contextual background, it has been further submitted, the extent of disability suffered by the original petitioner is not established. Yet, another notice was issued to the original petitioner on 15.10.2018 requiring her to appear before a specially constituted Medical Board. She complied. The disability claimed by the original petitioner has varied from 45% (at the time of occurrence) to 50% (at the time of her applying for Special BTC Training), which has now been found to be 20% on examination by the specially constituted Medical Board in 2018. 12. She complied. The disability claimed by the original petitioner has varied from 45% (at the time of occurrence) to 50% (at the time of her applying for Special BTC Training), which has now been found to be 20% on examination by the specially constituted Medical Board in 2018. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the record, in the first place, it is remarkable to the present facts that though a generic allegation was levelled against the original petitioner that her original Disability Certificate dated 20.07.2006 was fraudulent and that allegation was levelled in the Show-Cause-Notice, the original petitioner had completely denied that allegation and stoutly stated that she had been issued the Disability Certificate by the Chief Medical Officer, Firozabad. Copy of that Certificate is also on record. It clearly bears the signatures and seal of the issuing authority of the two doctors constituting the Medical Board, including an Orthopedic Surgeon. 13. In the context of such facts, no finding has been recorded that the Certificate dated 20.07.2016 (certifying the disability of the original petitioner to the extent 50%), was not issued by the competent authority. Yet, after recording objection raised by the original petitioner, the impugned order dated 13.03.2020, only records the conclusion to cancel the original petitioner's selection - for no reason. Thereafter, the conclusion reached that the original Disability Certificate was fraudulent, is unreasoned. 14. Faced with that, reliance has been placed on the fact that the original Disability Certificate does not make clear, if the disability suffered by the original petitioner was permanent, partial or temporary. Here, the degree of disability suffered has varied from 50% (in the year 2006) to 45% and later to 20%. Since the original Disability Certificate was issued by two medical doctors and not three, Sri Maurya would contend, for that reason also, the said Certificate is fraudulent. 15. We are constrained to observe that the submission advanced is wholly misconceived and untenable. The State, as an employer, provided for a welfare measure to allow for persons with disability to be accommodated in public employment on an equal footing. For that purpose, it not only provided for reservation but also a mechanism to allow for the deserving to secure such public employment on the strength of their inter se merit. The State, as an employer, provided for a welfare measure to allow for persons with disability to be accommodated in public employment on an equal footing. For that purpose, it not only provided for reservation but also a mechanism to allow for the deserving to secure such public employment on the strength of their inter se merit. That mechanism included certification of medical disability suffered, by government doctors acting through Medical Board constituted by respective Chief Medical Officer, a responsible and competent government functionary. He was obligated to constitute a team of experts to assess and certify such disability. 16. In the present facts, such team appears to have been constituted by the Chief Medical Officer, Firozabad who issued the original Disability Certificate to the original petitioner-respondent. It is not the case of the State, either that that certificate was not issued by the Chief Medical Officer Firozabad or that that authority had acted in collusion with the original petitioner. Rather, a technical objection has been raised that instead of three, two doctors signed the medical Disability Certificate. To constitute and appear before any medical board was not a choice given to the original petitioner. For that matter, no individual citizen has any role to play. Here an Orthopaedic Surgeon who may be deemed to be an expert to assess locomotor disability, was part of the Medical Board. Thus, at all a technical deficiency existed in the Disability Certificate. In place of three, two government doctors had examined the original-petitioner. 17. The case of the State-appellant is not that the original petitioner acted in any manner so as to prevent due verification of correct facts at the time when the public employment was granted to her in the year 2009. The enquiry did not arise on a suo motu action of the State-appellant but at the instance of a third party who claimed that many persons not suffering from any disability, had fraudulently obtained Disability Certificates and applied for reservation. As noted in the order passed by the Supreme Court that percentage was quantified to 21% of the total number of persons who may have been granted public employment on the strength of such fraudulently obtained certificates. 18. As noted in the order passed by the Supreme Court that percentage was quantified to 21% of the total number of persons who may have been granted public employment on the strength of such fraudulently obtained certificates. 18. Thus, the original Disability Certificate was issued to the petitioner- respondent by the duly authorised/competent authority namely, Chief Medical Officer, Firozabad after medical examination of the petitioner amongst other by an Orthopaedic Surgeon. The Medical Board constituted by the Chief Medical Officer, Firozabad certified the disability suffered by the petitioner-respondent at 50%, at that time. These facts have remained undisputed, till date. 19. No other or further fact has been found, despite repeated medical examination of the petitioner that she did not suffer locomotor disability from before. Therefore, the deficiency if any in the constitution of the Medical Board by the Chief Medical Officer, Firozabad is seen as an irregularity committed by that government functionary, not involving the petitioner-respondent. 20. Then, though the disability suffered by the original petitioner is now quantified at 20% and not 50%, no material exists to reach a conclusion that the original estimation of the disability at 50% was fraudulent. Being an expert opinion, it may not be categorised as fraudulent merely because a different estimation has been made by another expert, 12 years later. It is also not shown that the disability suffered would not or had not been medically addressed, over that period. 21. On a query made, it also could not be shown to us that the case of the original petitioner was one that fell within the ambit of cases falling within the percentage of those cases. At the same time, Sri Maurya alleges that such allegation was levelled in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner. We have perused the notice and found, it nowhere states that the case of the petitioner was included in 21% cases of the fraudulent certificates. The notice only stated that the certificate relied upon by the original petitioner was fraudulent. How such fraud or fabrication was alleged, was neither disclosed in the notice nor any finding was recorded in the impugned order with respect to the same. As noted above, the original petitioner has stoutly denied the allegation of fraud. The notice only stated that the certificate relied upon by the original petitioner was fraudulent. How such fraud or fabrication was alleged, was neither disclosed in the notice nor any finding was recorded in the impugned order with respect to the same. As noted above, the original petitioner has stoutly denied the allegation of fraud. The State has also not made a positive averment on oath that the original Disability Certificate of the original petitioner certifying 50% disability (as noted above), was forged or fabricated or fraudulently obtained. The only objection is that the same was issued upon medical examination by two and not three government doctors. 22. By relying on such plea, the State impliedly but necessarily admitted that the said certificate was in fact issued by Chief Medical Officer, Firozabad. The fact that that certificate may have been issued on the strength of medical examination by two and not three doctors, pales into insignificance at this late stage, inasmuch as even on the last medical examination conducted by the State authorities it was opined that the original petitioner did suffer a locomotor disability. 23. Therefore, as a matter of fact, it cannot be denied that the original petitioner continued to suffer from physical disability. Only, the extent of said disability is being disputed. Since the last assessment has been made nine years after grant of appointment and no material whatsoever has been brought on record to establish that it is a case where such disability may never have reduced, it may not survive for us to speculate the extent of disability suffered by the original petitioner when she first secured public employment. 24. The only dispute that the State may claim to exist is, the degree of that locomotor disability is not 50% but only 20%. We are equally not inclined to act on that plea as that discrepancy has arisen after many years and not at the relevant time. It is admitted to the State that the first Disability Certificate was issued in the year 2006. On its strength the original petitioner was granted training and later appointment in the year 2009. We are equally not inclined to act on that plea as that discrepancy has arisen after many years and not at the relevant time. It is admitted to the State that the first Disability Certificate was issued in the year 2006. On its strength the original petitioner was granted training and later appointment in the year 2009. Though the learned Chief Standing Counsel may be right in his contention that the State had initiated action in the year 2010, at the same time it cannot be overlooked that the last Medical Examination of the original petitioner took place at the same time on 02.08.2018. In any case, in absence of allegation of fraud committed, it is too late to act on such discrepancy, the original petitioner having worked for long years, not by committing any fraud. 25. Also, we are mindful that the present proceeding is not an appeal before a higher forum but an intra- Court appeal- i.e. an appeal on principle. Once discretionary relief has been granted by a learned single judge in exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the original petitioner has remained in employment from 2009, we find absolutely no good ground to offer interference with the order of the learned single judge to reverse the discretion exercised by the Court. Another view that may be taken on the same facts may not prompt us to act, at present. Writ jurisdiction having been exercised on fair appraisal of facts and law and discretionary relief having been granted, we find no merit to interfere with the order of the learned single judge. 26. However, it is made clear that in the present case even the learned single judge has not laid down any principle to be applied in other cases where any original medical certificate relied upon by any individual petitioner may be fraudulent or where no disability may be found suffered at time of its issuance. That case would stand on a completely different footing. 27. Accordingly, the present intra-Court appeal is dismissed . No order as to costs.