The State Of Maharashtra vs. Dr.Kishor Shrimant Ubale

Held

The Court held that the State was not empowered to direct a fresh medical examination of respondent No. 1 for the purpose of re-verifying his disability percentage, especially when he had already produced valid disability certificates. The Court noted that the State had not produced any Rule or administrative instruction authorizing such a re-examination. The contention that a complaint about the genuineness of the certificate justified the re-examination was rejected; the Court stated that if the genuineness was in doubt, the certificate should have been sent for verification to the issuing authority, not the candidate subjected to a fresh medical examination. The Court found that the MAT had rightly set aside the communication declaring respondent No. 1 ineligible. The reasoning was that the percentage of disability can be subjective and likely to differ between examinations. Even the re-examination certified some disability, albeit at a lower percentage. Therefore, rejecting the candidature based solely on the Medical Board's opinion after an unauthorized re-examination was erroneous. The Court found no jurisdictional error in the MAT's order.

Facts

The State of Maharashtra filed a writ petition challenging an order by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT). The MAT had allowed an Original Application filed by Dr. Kishor Shrimant Ubale (respondent No. 1), setting aside a letter dated 27.04.2018. This letter declared Dr. Ubale ineligible for the post of Sales Tax Inspector due to his disability being certified at 30%, below the required 40%. Dr. Ubale had applied for a post reserved for persons with disabilities, possessing earlier disability certificates showing 40% vision disability. He was selected by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) but was referred for a medical examination by a Medical Board at J.J. Hospital, Mumbai, which certified his disability at 30%. The State argued that a complaint about the genuineness of his certificate justified the re-examination and that he was estopped from challenging the Board's decision as he appeared without demur.

Key Issues

1. Whether the State was empowered to direct a fresh medical examination of respondent No. 1 for verifying his disability percentage, despite him possessing valid disability certificates, and if so, under which provision or administrative instruction? 2. Whether the State's action of declaring respondent No. 1 ineligible based on a fresh medical examination, which yielded a lower disability percentage than the prescribed minimum, was legally tenable, considering the existence of prior disability certificates? Petitioner's Arguments: The State contended that a complaint regarding the genuineness of respondent No. 1's disability certificate necessitated a referral for medical examination. They also argued that respondent No. 1, by appearing before the Medical Board without protest, was estopped from challenging its decision. Therefore, his ineligibility based on the 30% disability certification was valid. Respondent No. 1's Arguments: Respondent No. 1 supported the MAT's order, relying on its findings. The MAT had relied on a Government circular dated 14.01.2011, which stated that appointing authorities should not question a disability certificate once issued by a competent authority.