Chattisgarh High Court
Lakhan Bihari Patel vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 April, 2026
Digitally signed
YOGESH by YOGESH
TIWARI
TIWARI Date: 2026.04.02
17:30:53 +0530
1
2026:CGHC:15026
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 2241 of 2020
Lakhan Bihari Patel S/o Late Shri Amrit Lal Patel Aged About 46 Years
Occupation- Service, Assistant Teacher (LB) R/o Village- Kumhari,
Thana And Tahsil- Basna, Civil And Revenue Distt.- Mahasamund,
Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary Revenue Department,
Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex New Raipur, Distt.
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Collector Mahasamund Distt.- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Saraypali, Distt.- Mahasamund,
Chhattisgarh
4 - Kailash Chandra Patel S/o Late Shri Amrit Lal Patel Aged About 49
Years R/o Village- Kumhari, Post - Singhanpuri, Thana And Tahsil-
Basna, Civil And Revenue Distt.- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
5 - Premlal S/o Shri Vasudeo Aged About 45 Years By Caste Dhobi, R/o
Village- Gaurtek, Thana And Tahsil- Basna, Civil And Revenue Distt.-
Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate
For State/Respondents : Mr. Dilmanrati Minj, Dy. Advocate General
No.1 to 3
For Respondent No.4 : Mr. H.S. Patel and Mr. Chetan Singh
Chauhan, Advocate
2
Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge
Order on Board
01.04.2026
1. By filing the present writ petition, the petitioner assails the order
dated 13.08.2020 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Sub Divisional
Officer, (Revenue), Saraypali, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
(Respondent No. 3) in Revenue Case No.37B-121/Year 2017-18
pertaining to Village Kumhari, Tahsil Basna, whereby the said
authority has exceeded its jurisdiction not only in adjudicating
upon the validity and genuineness of the disability certificate
issued by the competent District Medical Board, Mahasamund,
but also in making recommendations for initiating criminal action
against the petitioner, despite lacking any expertise or authority in
medical matters. The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the
following relief(s):-
"10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to issue an appropriate writ by
quashing the impugned order dated 13.08.2020
(Annexure P-1).
10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
please to call for the records from the Court of
Sub Divisional officer Revenue for kind perusal
of this Hon'ble Court.
10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
please to direct the respondent No. 3 to return
the petitioner original certificate.
3
10.4 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and proper may also be passed in
favour of the petitioner."
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who was suffering
from hearing impairment, appeared before the Medical Board on
10.08.2010 for assessment, and upon due examination was found
to have 45.4% conductive hearing loss, pursuant to which a
disability certificate was issued in his favour (Annexure P-2). On
the basis of the said certificate, the petitioner applied for the post
of Shiksha Karmi Grade III and, after undergoing due selection
process, was duly selected and has been working on the said
post since the year 2010.
3. It is further case of the petitioner that a dispute arose between the
petitioner and his brother (Respondent No. 4) regarding partition
of land, and since the petitioner's mother resides with him,
Respondent No. 4, being aggrieved, submitted a complaint dated
12.12.2017 before the Collector alleging that the petitioner had
obtained a forged disability certificate (Annexure P-3). On the said
complaint, Respondent No. 2 directed Respondent No. 3 to
conduct an inquiry, whereupon Revenue Case No. 37/2017-18
was registered on 27.01.2018, notices were issued to the parties,
and replies were filed by the petitioner as well as Respondent
No.5 (Annexure P-4).
4. During the course of inquiry, Respondent No. 5 alleged misuse of
documents by the petitioner, though the certificate in question had
4
been issued by the Medical Board, Mahasamund. The respondent
No. 3 proceeded to call for reports and directed the petitioner to
submit a fresh certificate, and also sought a report from the Civil
Surgeon (Annexure P-5). Thereafter, without properly considering
the Civil Surgeon's report dated 24.01.2020, Respondent No. 3
passed the impugned order dated 13.08.2020 (Annexure P-1)
primarily on the basis of a subsequent audiometric report dated
10.01.2018, and further recommended initiation of criminal
proceedings against the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was
duly appointed as a Shiksha Karmi Grade-III in the Mahasamund
District after following the prescribed selection process under the
Shiksha Karmi Bharti Niyam. The petitioner's documents were
verified, and he was appointed on 24.11.2010 under the Janpad
Panchayat Saraypali. After completing the requisite probation
period, his services were confirmed, and vide order dated
01.07.2019, he was absorbed in the School Education
Department. At present, he continues to serve under the
administrative control of the District Education Officer and is
posted at Government Primary School, Karrabhaniyadipa, Block
Basna, District Mahasamund. The petitioner has been performing
his duties diligently, and his appointment has never been
challenged before any competent authority for a period exceeding
seven years.
5
6. Learned counsel submits that a dispute has arisen between the
petitioner and his brother, Respondent No. 4, Kailash Chand
Patel, concerning certain family property. Exploiting this dispute,
Respondent No. 4 filed an application before the Collector,
Mahasamund on 12.12.2017 during Jan Darshan, alleging that
the petitioner's disability certificate was forged and seeking an
enquiry. The Collector forwarded the matter to the SDO Revenue,
Saraypali for enquiry. Consequently, Revenue Case No. 37-B-
121/Year 2017-18 was registered, and the petitioner appeared
and submitted his reply, along with the original disability certificate
issued by the Medical Board, Mahasamund, in compliance with
the directions of the SDO.
7. Learned counsel further submits that the SDO Revenue, who is
neither a medical expert nor authorized to verify certificates
issued by the Medical Board, has exceeded his jurisdiction by
passing the impugned order dated 13.08.2020. The order alleges
that the petitioner obtained the certificate through fraudulent
means and directs initiation of criminal proceedings. The SDO did
not record any evidence, nor was the petitioner afforded a proper
opportunity of being heard. The conclusion reached that the
certificate is forged is wholly unsubstantiated and violates the
principles of natural justice. Verification reports obtained from the
Civil Surgeon and Mekahara Hospital do not support the
allegation of forgery, and the original certificate issued in 2010
remains valid.
6
8. Reliance is placed upon Section 52 of the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities Act, 2016 (for short, 'the Act'), which provides a
statutory mechanism for appeal and verification of disability
certificates. Learned counsel submits that the complainant did not
follow the statutory appeal procedure and instead filed a
complaint before the Collector. The SDO Revenue lacked
jurisdiction to annul a certificate issued by the competent Medical
Board.
9. Further, reliance is placed upon the Standard Operating
Procedure (SoP) for Deactivating/cancelling a Disability
Certificate issued by the Ministry of Social Justice &
Empowerment (Department of Empowerment of Persons with
Disabilities) effective from 1st February, 2025, which prescribes
a detailed procedure to be followed before any action can be
taken against a person holding such a certificate. No such
procedure was followed by the SDO Revenue, rendering the
impugned order void and unsustainable.
10. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment dated 07.08.2025
passed by the Allahabad High Court in Writ C- No.7585 of 2025
(Maaz Ahmed v. U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Health and
Family Welfare), wherein it was held that only the competent
issuing authority or a statutory mechanism can question or cancel
a certificate, and administrative officers cannot act beyond their
jurisdiction to invalidate a certificate as well as the judgment dated
7
25.09.2025 passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur
Bench in WP No. 212110 of 2024 (Sapna Lodhi v. The State of
Madhya Pradesh and others), which reinforces the principle that
any attempt to challenge a certificate without following statutory
procedures and without proper jurisdiction amounts to arbitrary
and illegal action.
11. On the other hand, learned State counsel appearing for
Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 opposes the submissions advanced on
behalf of the petitioner and submits that the present writ petition is
wholly misconceived, devoid of merits and substance, and is
liable to be dismissed at the threshold. It is contended that the
answering respondents deny all the adverse allegations made
against the State, and the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any
enforceable legal right in his favour warranting interference by this
Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India.
12. Learned State counsel further submits that the proceedings were
initiated on the basis of a complaint dated 12.12.2017 made by
Respondent No. 4 before the Collector, District Mahasamund,
alleging that the petitioner had secured appointment on the post
of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III on the basis of a forged disability
certificate. Acting upon the said complaint, the Collector directed
Respondent No. 3 (SDO, Revenue) to conduct an inquiry,
pursuant to which Revenue Case No. 37B-121/ Year 2017-18 was
8
registered and notices were issued to the parties. It is submitted
that the petitioner participated in the proceedings, filed his reply,
and did not raise any objection with regard to the jurisdiction of
Respondent No. 3 at the relevant time. It is further submitted that
during the course of inquiry, Respondent No. 5 also filed his reply
stating that he had appeared for medical examination at
Mekahara Hospital, Raipur, and later came to know that his
disability certificate had been misused by the petitioner by affixing
his own photograph. The disability certificate in question was sent
for verification to the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical and Health
Officer, Mahasamund, and as per report dated 24.01.2020, as
well as subsequent medical tests conducted in the years 2018, no
hearing disability was found in the petitioner. On the basis of the
material collected during inquiry and the medical reports, it was
concluded that the petitioner did not suffer from the claimed
disability and had prima facie used a certificate not pertaining to
him.
13. Learned State counsel further submits that the impugned order
dated 13.08.2020 is merely recommendatory in nature, whereby
Respondent No. 3 has submitted a report to the Collector
recommending initiation of further proceedings, and the matter is
still pending consideration before the competent authority.
Therefore, the present petition is premature and not maintainable.
It is also contended that due opportunity of hearing was afforded
to the petitioner during the inquiry proceedings, and no violation of
9
principles of natural justice has occurred. Hence, it is submitted
that the impugned action is just, proper, and legal, and the writ
petition deserves to be dismissed.
14. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 4 submits that no specific
relief has been claimed by the petitioner against the answering
respondent, and as such, Respondent No. 4 is only a formal party
to the present proceedings. It is submitted that Respondent No. 4
had lodged a complaint before the Collector alleging that the
petitioner had secured employment as Shiksha Karmi on the
basis of a forged disability certificate, upon which an inquiry was
initiated by the competent authority. During the course of inquiry,
the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to submit his reply and
deny the allegations. It is further submitted that the Collector
sought verification from the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Hospital
Superintendent, District Hospital, Mahasamund regarding the
genuineness of the disability certificate. It is contended that as per
the reports dated 24.01.2020 and 26.02.2020 issued by the
competent medical authority, it could not be ascertained whether
the photograph affixed on the certificate pertained to the person
who was medically examined, and further, the audiometric and
BERA tests conducted in the year 2018 did not reveal any hearing
disability in the petitioner. On the basis of such reports, it
appeared that the petitioner was not suffering from the claimed
disability and had obtained the certificate by getting another
person examined. It is thus submitted that, after due inquiry and
10
providing adequate opportunity of hearing, Respondent No. 3
rightly passed the order dated 13.08.2020 recommending
initiation of proceedings, and there is no illegality or infirmity in the
same, rendering the present petition liable to be dismissed.
15. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and
perused the documents annexed with the writ petition.
16. From perusal of the order dated 13.08.2020 passed by the Sub
Divisional Officer, (Revenue), Saraypali (Respondent No. 3) in
Revenue Case No. 37B-121/Year 2017-18, it transpires that the
proceedings were initiated on the basis of a complaint submitted
by one Kailashchandra Patel before the Collector, Mahasamund,
alleging that the petitioner, namely Lakhan Bihari Patel, had
obtained appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III by
using a forged disability certificate, purportedly by getting another
person medically examined and thereafter affixing his own
photograph on the said certificate; pursuant to the said complaint,
notices were issued to the parties, replies were filed by the
petitioner as well as other concerned persons, and the matter was
inquired into by the respondent authority. It further transpires that
during the course of inquiry, the respondent authority sought
verification of the disability certificate from the Civil Surgeon-cum-
Chief Hospital Superintendent, District Hospital, Mahasamund,
who, vide communications dated 24.01.2020 and 26.02.2020,
reported that although the certificate was issued by the District
11
Medical Board, it could not be ascertained whether the
photograph affixed on the certificate pertained to the person who
was medically examined, and further that subsequent audiometric
and BERA tests conducted in the year 2018 did not indicate any
hearing disability in the petitioner.
17. On the basis of the aforesaid material and after hearing the
parties, the Sub Divisional Officer arrived at a conclusion that the
petitioner was not suffering from 45.4% disability as claimed and
that it appeared that the disability certificate had been obtained by
getting some other person examined, and accordingly, the
Respondent No. 3 forwarded a report to the Collector,
Mahasamund recommending initiation of further action against the
petitioner.
18. A thorough and comprehensive examination of the impugned
order dated 13.08.2020, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer,
(Revenue), Saraypali (Respondent No. 3) in Revenue Case No.
37B-121/Year 2017-18, reveals that the order is vitiated by
substantial jurisdictional and legal defects, warranting its
annulment by this Court in the following terms :-
18.1 Lack of Jurisdiction & Expertise:
Respondent No. 3, being a Revenue Officer, has no statutory
authority or domain expertise to undertake a quasi-judicial inquiry
into the validity, authenticity, or medical correctness of a disability
certificate issued by a duly constituted District Medical Board. The
12
power to assess medical disabilities and disentangle questions
relating to genuineness and medical causation lies exclusively
within medically qualified fora and not with a revenue official. The
Supreme Court held in enn number of cases that where
adjudication involves specialised determination (such as medical
or technical examination), a forum without requisite expertise
cannot be saddled with such inquiry, as it imperils the rule of law
and leads to erroneous conclusions.
18.2 Inadequate Application of Mind and Unsupported Findings:
A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that the conclusion
that the petitioner "appears to have obtained the certificate by
getting another person examined" is based on conjecture and
surmises rather than on material evidence. The Civil Surgeon's
communications themselves stated that it could not be
ascertained whether the photograph on the certificate belonged to
the person examined, and that subsequent audiometric findings
did not indicate disability. Nowhere did the Civil Surgeon
categorically conclude that the certificate was forged. Hence, the
Revenue Officer's finding is unsustainable in law.
18.3 Violation of Principles of Natural Justice & Fair Inquiry:
Although the impugned order uses the word "heard," there is no
record of any meaningful hearing where the petitioner was given
a fair opportunity to confront adverse material or to place
independent medical evidence before the authority. A mere
13
formal hearing devoid of any opportunity to meet and rebut
charges, or to test conflicting medical evidence, amounts to
violation of natural justice. The impugned order is precisely one
such instance where the principles of audi alteram partem have
been violated.
18.4 Incorrect Application of Subsequent Medical Tests:
The Revenue Officer erroneously relied upon a subsequent
audiometric test of 2018, which did not indicate current disability,
to cloud the correctness of a certificate lawfully issued in 2010.
Disability is a biological and temporal phenomenon. A certificate
validly issued at one point of time cannot be rendered "forged"
simply because a person's condition improves over time. The
Supreme Court held that a certified disability cannot be
retrospectively invalidated on the basis of later medical
assessments without cogent expert evidence that the original
certification itself was flawed or mala fide.
18.5 Non-Consideration of Material on Record:
The petitioner had placed on record the original certificate and
relied upon the statutory verifications; however, Respondent No.
3 failed to refer to or verify crucial material, such as seeking direct
confirmation from the issuing Medical Board, obtaining identity
corroboration documents, or ordering a fresh medical
examination by an independent panel. This omission is fatal to
the validity of the order.
14
18.6 Conclusory Report Treated as Binding Order:
The report dated 13.08.2020 is in substance recommendatory
and not a decision capable of directly affecting any legal right of
the petitioner. The law is well-settled that even recommendatory
opinions must be grounded in reasoned analysis supported by
evidence. In enn number of cases the Supreme Court held that a
report that amounts to an executive opinion cannot be equated
with a final adjudicatory order unless the same is explicitly
backed by statutory authority and rational basis.
19. The aforesaid aspect was considered by the Supreme Court
extensively in the case of Om Rathord v. Director General of
Health Services and others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3130,
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also taken into
consideration the facts and the developments leading to the
enactment of the Act. The Court had also noticed that the persons
who were claiming the rights and reservation granted to persons
with disability was no more a charity and was a right entrenched
under the Act. The Supreme Court had noticed the form which
was required to be filled by the persons for claiming the benefit of
benchmark disability. Para 22 & Para 23 of the judgment read as
under:
"22. From promoting self-rejection of disabled
medical aspirants to assuming that their
accommodations would lower the standard of
competence and would regardless be fruitless -
15
the guidelines have charted their way into
disrepute. Vitally, the resistance to alter the
standard in a framework that has historically
effaced a marginalised group - namely disabled
persons other than in the capacity of a patient -
is antithetical to any rights based approach to
disability law. Many other issues of critical
importance arise from these guidelines which
are not germane to evaluate the case before us
but may be open for an appropriate
proceeding.7 The current guidelines allow
persons with more than eight percent
locomotor disability to be admitted to MBBS
course on a case by case basis after a
functional competency to see whether their
disability can be 'brought below 80%.' Before
proceeding to analyse this guideline, it is
essential that we clarify the phrase 'brought
below 80%'.
23. The intention of the guideline in using the
term 'brought below 80%' is ostensibly to mean
that the functional assessment shall evaluate if
the person with disability can perform the tasks
which they are expected to perform as a
student and a practitioner. The assumption in
using the phrase 'below 80%' defeats the
purpose of the guideline which is to allow
candidates into the MBBS course on a case by
case basis. Bodies are not biological parts put
together - each to serve a pre-determined role.
They are alive - with thoughts, feelings, dreams
and aspirations. All bodies - abled and disabled
- are guaranteed dignity under the Constitution.
16
A person with disability has to navigate the
rigours of a society which was modelled on the
premise of their absence. The disability of a
person is a reflection on the inaccessibility of
the society and not a comment upon the
individual. A person does not overcome
disability but learns to navigate life with it.
Disability is not a thing to be overcome or
brought down, but an attribute to be
acknowledged and accommodated. The use of
the term 'brought below 80%,' as well
intentioned as it may be, fails at this
foundational premise. One cannot assume that
all persons with more than 80% locomotor
disability are incompetent to pursue medicine
when their functional abilities have not been
assessed. The medical model of disability
apparent in the phrase must give way to a
social model of disability which takes into
account the variety of experiences and
outcomes which persons with disabilities have
when they interact with different kinds of
societies and accommodations."
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also noticed the Act which
harmonizes the constitutional promise of full citizenship with
action in Para 26, which reads as under:
"26. The Act harmonises the Constitutional
promise of full citizenship with action - by
creating a framework in which persons with
disabilities may translate their rights into
remedies. To establish a bed of rights, Section
17
2 of the Act defines and acknowledges barriers,
discrimination, inclusive education and
reasonable accommodation. Section 3 of the
Act affords the right to equality and non-
discrimination for persons with disabilities. The
requirement of assessing the functional
competence of a medical aspirant with over
eighty percent locomotor disability recognises
that assessment must be done on a case to
case basis. The method of assessment by
designated Disability Assessment Boards must
therefore reflect the approach and intent of the
legal framework within which the Boards
operate. An assessment for functional
competency entails an analysis of the skill set
which a person with disability must learn in
order to compete and pursue the medical
course. This is a marked difference from
requiring a specific manner which a candidate
must use to achieve the outcome. For example,
a functional competency model would require a
candidate to effectively communicate with
patients but would not require them to have
speech or intact hands. By focusing on the end
points, the approach avoids any ableism to
seep into the assessment and avoids reifying
that there is one and only one manner to
achieve desired outcomes."
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also taken note of and relied
upon the observations made in Omkar Ramchandra Gond v.
Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2860, wherein it has been
categorically held that the validity and genuineness of a disability
18
certificate issued by a duly constituted Medical Board cannot be
lightly questioned by authorities who lack the requisite medical
expertise or statutory competence. The Court emphasized that
any determination with respect to the correctness of such a
certificate must necessarily be undertaken by the competent
medical authority or through a procedure specifically prescribed
under the relevant statutory framework. It was further observed
that administrative or quasi-judicial authorities, not being experts
in the medical field, cannot assume the role of an appellate or
reviewing body over findings rendered by specialized medical
boards. The Supreme Court cautioned that any such exercise,
undertaken without jurisdiction and without adherence to the
prescribed procedure, would be arbitrary, unsustainable in law,
and violative of the principles of natural justice by observing as
follows :-
"28. Justice KV Viswanathan speaking for this
Court in Omkar Gond (supra) has applied a
purposive interpretation to the guidelines
(Appendix "H-1") in the context of a medical
aspirant with dialectic incapacity. This Court
held that the principle of reasonable
accommodation in Section 2(y) of the RPWD
Act read with Article 41 of the Constitution
necessarily means that (i) a person cannot be
disqualified merely on the basis of a
benchmark quantification. Such a criteria would
be unconstitutional for being overbroad; (ii) the
Disability Assessment Board must not act as
19
monotonous automations looking at the
quantified disability and disqualifying
candidates. The Board must examine if the
candidate can pursue the course with their
disability; and (iii) in doing so, the Board is not
merely obliged to provide assistive devices and
other substances which will help the candidate.
The true role of the Board is to assess the
competence of a candidate."
22. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Purswani
Ashutosh v. Union of India, (2019) 14 SCC 422 and recorded as
under:-
"35. In Purswani Ashutosh v. Union of India,19
this Court was deciding if a medical aspirant
who had appeared for the NEET UG Exam
2018 was eligible for the reservation earmarked
for persons with disabilities. Despite having low
vision impairment - the Medical Board had
opined that the petitioner in that case was
ineligible for reservation. While rejecting the
opinion of the committee, this Court held that a
medical board cannot be allowed to override
the statutory mandate of providing reservation
to persons with disabilities. No committee has
primacy over the law. We must emphasize that
the opinions of medical boards and committees
are not only required to adhere to legal
standards but must also embody core
principles of the rule of law within their
processes. This Court, following a consistent
line of precedent, has underscored the need for
20
reasoned and transparent decisions by such
boards, given the profound impact these
opinions have on the life trajectory of
individuals before them."
23. While interpreting the appendix interpreted the same as under:-
"37. Appendix "H-1" stipulates that
assessments, particularly for individuals with
locomotor disabilities exceeding 80%, should
focus on evaluating functional competence.
This functional competency test serves two
critical purposes. First, it emphasizes the
abilities of the person with a disability,
assessing their capability rather than their
limitations. Second, it mandates an evaluation
rooted in practical relevance, aligning the
candidate's abilities with the functional
requirements of the MBBS curriculum. Mere
quantification of disability is insufficient and
fails to address the necessary criteria, a
position this Court has consistently upheld as
unsatisfactory in such cases."
***
“39. Courts are not expert bodies in matters of
medicine. The competent authority to adjudge
the eligibility of a person to pursue a medical
course is the Disability Assessment Board.
However, courts have the jurisdiction to ensure
that the manner in which the Board proceeds
and functions is in compliance with established
principles of law. Ultimately, the Court will have
to rely on the opinion of the Board to adjudicate
21
the legal remedies of a person with disability.
The interference of Courts is not to supplant its
opinion for that of the experts but to ensure that
a holistic evaluation of competence is
conducted and that no person’s career is set at
naught with the stroke of a pen.”
***
“53. We have noted above that Disability
Assessment Boards must comply with rule of
law principles by injecting transparency,
fairness and consistency in their approach. The
Boards must further elaborate on the reasons
for the outcome of their assessment, in
particular when they opine that the candidate is
ineligible. The Disability Assessment Boards
must focus on the functional competence of
persons with disabilities and not merely
quantify the disability. The quantification of
disability is a task in need of a purpose within
the human rights based model of disability. The
functional competency approach to
assessment for a medical course is globally
recognised. To enable members of the
Assessment Boards in effectively applying the
functional competency test, they must be
adequately trained by professionals and
persons with disabilities or persons who have
worked on disability justice. These trainings
must be with a view to enhance the
understanding of the Board members in
assessing persons with disabilities and must
not pathologize or problematize them.
22
54. The disability of a person is quantified at
the time of availing a Unique Disability ID
Card.27 The quantification of disability is moot
at the point of admission to educational
courses since the eligibility for a person to
benefit from reservation may be evaluated
using the quantification in the UDID Card. If a
person with disability wants to have themself
re-assessed so as to verify whether their
disability falls within the prescribed parameters
for reservation – they may choose to do so by
updating their UDID Cards. The role of the
Disability Assessment Boards must be tailored
(with a functional competency approach) only
for the course which the candidate seeks to
pursue.”
24. The Supreme Court had also given the directions for disability
assessment course in Para 57, which is as under:
“57. The provision of an audit trail to assess
whether a given accommodation required by a
student with disability places an undue burden
on the institution is a vital safeguard for
transparency and fairness. Dr Satendra Singh
in his report dated 20 October 2024 has made
suggestions to (i) rename the Disability
Assessment Boards as Ability Assessment
Boards to align them better with their intended
purpose; (ii) include a doctor with disability or
who is well conversant with disability rights in
such Boards; (iii) use a human rights model of
disability for assessment; (iv) issue guidance on
clinical accommodations; (v) train the Boards in
23carrying out the disability competency
assessment; and (vi) use the Enabling Units to
serve as a contact point for clinical
accommodations. As far as the inclusion of
doctors with disabilities in the Disability
Assessment Boards is concerned – the first
respondent has issued a circular on 24 March
2022 mandating such inclusion. This direction
shall be complied with by all Boards.”
25. Ultimately, the following conclusions were recorded by the
Supreme Court in Para 59 & Para 60, which read as under:
“59. Our conclusions in light of this case are
formulated in the following terms:
a. The impugned judgment of the Nagpur
bench of the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay is set aside and the report of the
Disability Assessment Board of AIIMS, Nagpur
dated 13 August 2024 is quashed for failing to
apply the statutory and regulatory standards
applicable to the assessment of a person with
disability;
b. A supernumerary seat shall be created at the
AIIMS, Nagpur and the seat shall be allocated
to the appellant, provided that he has not
already secured a seat at a college of his
choosing;
c. The college shall be given the report dated
20 October 2024 which makes suggestions as
to the accommodations which may be
24extended to the appellant to successfully
pursue the MBBS course;
d. The appellant shall be protected from
victimisation;
e. The judgment shall apply in rem.
60. We further conclude as follows:
a. The second respondent shall issue fresh
guidelines for admitting persons with disabilities
into medical courses. The committee
formulating the guidelines must include experts
with disability or persons who have worked on
disability justice. The guidelines shall comply
with the judgments of this Court and
contemporary advancements in disability
justice;
b. The Disability Assessment Boards shall
eschew from a benchmark model to test the
functional competence of medical aspirants
with disability. The second respondent shall
issue appropriate guidelines in this regard;
a. The Disability Assessment Boards shall
include a doctor or health professional with
disability as per the directions of the first
respondent dated 24 March 2022;
b. The conduct of the Disability Assessment
Boards shall be fair, transparent and in
compliance with principles of the rule of law.
Attention must be paid to ensure that
candidates appearing before the Board do not
25feel uncomfortable on account of physical or
attitudinal barriers;
c. Reasonable accommodation is a gateway
right to avail all other fundamental, human and
legal rights for persons with disabilities. Non-
availability of reasonable accommodation
amounts to discrimination and violates
substantive equality of persons with disabilities;
d. The inclusion of persons with disability in the
medical profession would enhance the quality
of healthcare and meet the preambular virtue of
fraternity and the guarantees in Articles 21, 19,
14 and 15 of the Constitution;
e. Applicants to the NEET examination must be
informed about the compliance of accessibility
norms and provisions of reasonable
accommodation available at colleges. The
respondents shall issue appropriate directions
to create a database with relevant information
on accessibility and reasonable
accommodation; and
f. Enabling Units at medical colleges shall act
as points of contact for persons with disability
desirous of accessing clinical
accommodations.”
26. In addition to the law as explained, from perusal of the Act, it is
clear that the rights and entitlements of the persons suffering from
disability and persons with benchmark disability flow in their
favour by virtue of Chapter II. Special provisions for persons with
benchmark disability have been prescribed in Chapter VI which
26
also include reservation in terms of the mandate of Section 34.
Chapter IX of the said Act prescribes for registration of institutions
for persons with disabilities and grants to such institutions.
Chapter X of the said Act prescribes for certification of specified
disabilities. It prescribes for the guidelines for assessment,
designation of the certifying authorities, procedure for certification
and appeal against the decision of the certifying authority.
27. Rule 17 and Rule 18 prescribe for manner of applying for disability
certificate and the issuance of a disability certificate which after
amendment in the year 2024 read as under:-
“17. Application for disability certificate and
UDID Card.- (1) Any person with specified
disability may apply in Form -IV for a disability
certificate/ Unique Disability Identity (UDID)
Card and submit the application through UDID
Portal to:
(a) a medical authority or any other notified
competent medical authority to issue such a
certificate in the district of residence of the
applicant as mentioned in the proof of
residence in the application; or
(b) the concerned medical authority in a
hospital where he may be undergoing or may
have undergone treatment in connection with
his disability:
Provided that where a person with disability is a
minor or suffering from intellectual disability or
any other Disability which renders him unfit or
27unable to make such an application himself, the
application on his behalf may be made by his
legal guardian or by any organisation
registered under the Act having the minor
under its care.
(2) The application shall be accompanied by –
(a) proof of identity;
(b) a recent photograph not older than six
months;
(c) proof of residence;
(d) aadhaar number or aadhaar enrolment
number.
Note: if an Aadhaar Card is submitted as proof
of identity, no additional documents will be
required for address proof in case Aadhaar has
the same residential address”
In the said rules, for rule 18, the following rule
shall be substituted, namely:-
“18. Issue of disability certificate/ UDID Card.-
(1) On receipt of an application under rule 17,
the medical authority or any other notified
competent medical authority shall verify the
information as provided by the applicant and
shall assess the disability in terms of the
relevant guidelines issued by the Central
Government and after satisfying himself that
the applicant is a person with disability, issue a
disability certificate in Form-V and Form-VI and
one of the three types of colour-coded UDID
28card in form VII in his favour, as the case may
be. One of the three types of colour- coded
UDID Card shall be issued based on the
severity of the disability-
a. White Band Card: When the disability
percentage of a Person with Disability is below
forty percent.
b. Yellow Band Card: When the disability
percentage of a Person with Disability is forty
percent or above but below eighty percent.
c. Blue Band Card: When the disability
percentage of a Person with Disability is eighty
percent or above.”
28. Rule 19 of the said Rules prescribes that a person to whom a
certificate is issued under Rule 18 shall be entitled for all the
facilities, concessions and benefits admissible for persons under
the scheme of the Government and of Non-Government
Organization. Thus, the certificate once issued is valid for claiming
the benefits as flow in pursuance to the prescriptions contained in
the Act and the various statutes.
29. The said once issued under the statute and the rules framed
cannot be overridden by any assessment done by any authority
which is not an authority specified under the Act and the Rules.
30. The Standard Operating Procedure (SoP) for
Deactivating/cancelling a Disability Certificate issued by the
Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment (Department of
29
Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities) effective from 1 st
February, 2025, which prescribes a detailed procedure to be
followed before any action can be taken against a person holding
such a certificate. No such procedure was followed by the SDO
Revenue, rendering the impugned order void and unsustainable.
The relevant portion of the SoP reads as follows :-
“(ii) When on examination by Medical Board or
Appellate Medical Board Constituted by
Government Employers (GEs) or Government
Institutions of Higher Education (GIHE) and
Other Higher Education Institutions aided by
Government (OTHER) or any other
Government authority or undertaking of
Government, it is established that the disability
cenificate and UDID card holder is not a
genuine person with Disability (ies) and the
request is made through the competent
authority of the said organization.”
31. Reverting to the facts of the present case, in the light of the above
judicial precedents as well as the Standard Operating Procedure
issued by the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment
(Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities), it is
quite vivid that the impugned action undertaken by Respondent
No. 3 is wholly without jurisdiction, legally unsustainable, and
contrary to the settled principles governing adjudication of rights
of persons with disabilities.
30
32. It clearly emerges that the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue),
Saraypali, has ventured into an arena which is exclusively
reserved for duly constituted Medical Boards and competent
authorities under the statutory framework of the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the Rules framed thereunder. The
determination of the validity, genuineness, and medical
correctness of a disability certificate necessarily requires
specialized medical expertise and adherence to the procedure
prescribed under law. The respondent authority, being a revenue
officer, neither possessed the requisite expertise nor the statutory
competence to undertake such an inquiry. The exercise of power
by Respondent No. 3, therefore, suffers from inherent lack of
jurisdiction and is vitiated on this ground alone.
33. Further, a careful scrutiny of the material on record demonstrates
that the findings recorded in the impugned order are based on
conjectures and surmises rather than on cogent and conclusive
evidence. The reports of the Civil Surgeon do not categorically
hold that the disability certificate issued in favour of the petitioner
was forged or fabricated; rather, they merely indicate an inability
to verify certain aspects and refer to subsequent medical tests
which did not indicate present disability. Such material, by no
stretch of imagination, could form the basis for a definitive
conclusion that the petitioner had fraudulently obtained the
certificate by impersonation. The impugned order, therefore,
reflects non-application of mind and suffers from perversity.
31
34. It is also evident that the respondent authority has placed undue
reliance on subsequent medical examination conducted in the
year 2018 to discredit a certificate issued in the year 2010. This
approach is fundamentally flawed, as disability is not a static
condition and may vary over time. A certificate validly issued at a
particular point of time cannot be retrospectively invalidated
merely on the basis of a later medical assessment, unless it is
conclusively established by a competent authority that the original
certification process itself was vitiated by fraud or
misrepresentation. No such finding, supported by legally
admissible evidence, has been recorded in the present case.
35. Moreover, the procedure prescribed under the Act of 2016, the
Rules framed thereunder, and the Standard Operating Procedure
for deactivating or cancelling a disability certificate has not been
followed. The said framework mandates that any doubt regarding
the genuineness of a disability certificate must be examined by
the issuing authority or by a duly constituted Medical Board
through a structured process, ensuring fairness, transparency,
and opportunity of hearing. The complete bypassing of this
statutory mechanism by Respondent No. 3 renders the impugned
action arbitrary and violative of the rule of law.
36. The impugned order is also vitiated on account of violation of the
principles of natural justice. Though the proceedings ostensibly
indicate that an opportunity of hearing was afforded, there is
32
nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner was given a
meaningful and effective opportunity to rebut the allegations,
confront the material relied upon, or produce independent medical
evidence. The absence of a fair and proper inquiry strikes at the
very root of the decision-making process and renders the
impugned order unsustainable.
37. Additionally, the recommendation made by Respondent No. 3 for
initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner is wholly
unwarranted and beyond the scope of the proceedings. In the
absence of a clear and conclusive finding of fraud, recorded by a
competent authority following due procedure, such a
recommendation is not only premature but also indicative of a
prejudged and arbitrary approach.
38. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the impugned order dated 13.08.2020 cannot be
sustained in the eyes of law. The same is hereby quashed and set
aside. Consequently, any action taken or proposed to be taken
pursuant to the said order, including the recommendation for
initiation of criminal proceedings, shall also stand annulled.
39. Respondent No. 3 is directed to forthwith return the original
disability certificate of the petitioner, if the same is still in custody.
It is, however, made clear that if the competent authority, in
accordance with the provisions of the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016, the Rules framed thereunder, and the
33
applicable Standard Operating Procedure, deems it appropriate to
verify the certificate, it shall be at liberty to do so strictly in
accordance with law, by following due process and by referring
the matter to the competent Medical Board.
40. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.
Sd/- -
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Yogesh
34
Head Note
Courts, though not expert medical bodies, are empowered to judicially
review the decision-making process to ensure that it is fair, transparent,
and in accordance with established legal principles; however, in
matters requiring medical expertise, they must accord due deference
to, and ultimately rely upon, the opinion rendered by the Disability
Assessment Board as the competent authority.
