Partly allowed

Jayshri Abhiman Pagar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary, Persons With of Disabilities Welfare and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Jan 2026WP/434/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disability certificate re-verification; UDID card validation; benchmark disability 40% threshold; Section 56/57 guidelines and certifying authorities; Section 91 punishment fraudulent availing; Sections 2(r), 2(s), 2(zc), 3, 6, 7, 20, 34, 58, 59, 102 RPwD Act 2016; Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules 2017 Rules 17-20; Maharashtra State Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules 2024 Rule 8(2)

What did the court decide?

All Writ Petitions partly allowed: impugned orders of suspension/stoppage of salaries/directions to register FIRs/cancellation of approvals or Shalarth IDs/disciplinary orders/transfers issued during

Jayshri Abhiman Pagar and Ors. vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2026)

¶1

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶2

Digitally signed by SUNNY SUNNY ANKUSHRAO ANKUSHRAO THOTE THOTE Date: 2026.05.08 13:51:06 +0530

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.4325 OF 2026

¶6

Santosh Hiraman Lashkare ….Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & 4 Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.433 OF 2026 Smt. Shobha Madhukar Khaire ….Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & 5 Ors. ….Respondents

¶7

WITH

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.834 OF 2026

¶9

Hemlata Ramdas Pagar & 1 Anr. ….Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & 4 Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.839 OF 2026 Prashant Sham Bagul & 7 Ors. ….Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & 4 Ors. ….Respondents

¶10

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.835 OF 2026 Samadhan Kalu Shewale & 4 Ors. ….Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & 4 Ors. ….Respondents

¶11

Sunny Thote 1 of 147

¶12

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶13

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.836 OF 2026

¶14

Kiran Pandit Jadhav & 24 Ors. ….Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & 4 Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.837 OF 2026 Sunanda Daulat Bachhav & 2 Ors. ….Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & 4 Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1999 OF 2026 Vilas Murlidhar Gangurde & 2 Ors. ….Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & 4 Ors. ….Respondents

¶15

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2378 OF 2026 Yuvraj Tanaji Wani ….Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & 4 Ors. ….Respondents

¶16

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2380 OF 2026 Hiralal Vitthal Patil & 1 Anr. ….Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & 4 Ors. ….Respondents

¶17

2 of 147

¶18

Sunny Thote

¶19

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶20

WITH

¶21

WRIT PETITION NO.2381 OF 2026

¶22

Abhijit Arun Tupe & 4 Ors. ….Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & 4 Ors. ….Respondents

¶23

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2382 OF 2026 Gitabai Punja Bharati & 1 Anr. ….Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & 4 Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2383 OF 2026 Dilip Ramesh Nikam & 3 Ors. ….Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & 3 Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2729 OF 2026 Nikhil Ramesh Fendar ….Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & 4 Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3436 OF 2026 Varsha Trimbak Akolkar ….Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & 7 Ors. ….Respondents

¶24

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3462 OF 2026

¶25

3 of 147

¶26

Sunny Thote

¶27

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶28

Ravindra Babasaheb Shinde & 1 Anr. ….Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & & Ors. ….Respondents

¶29

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3465 OF 2026

¶30

Maroti Babarao Ghenekar & 3 Ors. ….Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & 7 Ors. ….Respondents

¶31

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3470 OF 2026

¶32

Pushpalata Dinkar Khedkar ….Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & 7 Ors. ….Respondents

¶33

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2036 OF 2026

¶34

Sachin Pitambar Patil & 33 Ors. ….Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra & 6 Ors. ….Respondents

¶35

WITH

¶36

WRIT PETITION NO.3631 OF 2026

¶37

Rupali Parbati Lokhande & 1 Anr. ….Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra 8 Ors. ….Respondents

¶38

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2223 OF 2026 IN WRIT PETITION NO.17921 OF 2025

¶39

4 of 147

¶40

Sunny Thote

¶41

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶42

Mrs. Vanita Hanmant Borate	….Applicant
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Mrs. Vanita Hanumant Borate	….Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & 2 Ors.	….Respondents

¶43

WITH

¶44

WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.7966 OF 2026 Yogesh Suresh Battise & 1 Anr. ….Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & 4 Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4038 OF 2026 Ashok Suresh Bahir ….Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & 5 Ors. ….Respondents

¶45

WITH

¶46

WRIT PETITION NO.4033 OF 2026 WITH

¶47

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2396 OF 2026

¶48

Anjali Marotirao Munde ….Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & 5 Ors. ….Respondents

¶49

WITH

¶50

WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.8937 OF 2026

¶51

Pandharinath Satwajirao Gaikwad & 6 Ors. ….Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & 3 Ors. ….Respondents

¶52

Sunny Thote 5 of 147

¶53

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶54

WITH

¶55

WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.9141 OF 2026

¶56

Gangadhar Dadasaheb Deshmukh & 19 Ors.	….Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & 4 Ors.	….Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2647	OF 2026

¶57

Santosh Hiraman Lashkare ….Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra & 4 Ors. ….Respondents

¶58

WITH

¶59

WRIT PETITION NO.4441 OF 2026 Sindhu Asaram Watmode ….Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & 6 Ors. ….Respondents

¶60

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4442 OF 2026

¶61

Ashok S/o Dashrath Ghule ….Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & 3 Ors. ….Respondents

¶62

WITH

¶63

WRIT PETITION NO.4443 OF 2026

¶64

Shri Sandip s/o. Vinayak Sonawane ….Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & 6 Ors. ….Respondents

¶65

6 of 147

¶66

Sunny Thote

¶67

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶68

WITH

¶69

WRIT PETITION NO.4444 OF 2026

¶70

Ashok Hanmanntrao Kolgaonkar & 6 Ors. ….Petitioners Versus
The State of Maharashtra & 5 Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4446 OF 2026
Shri Ganesh S/o Murlidhar Mahajan ….Petitioner Versus
The State of Maharashtra & 6 Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4445 OF 2026
Sushma Laxman Dhonde & 6 Ors. ….Petitioners Versus
The State of Maharashtra & 5 Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4448 OF 2026
Mahadev Hamant Shinde & 89 Ors. ….Petitioners Versus
The State of Maharashtra & 4 Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4451 OF 2026
Sayyed Sallauddin Rehman ….Petitioner Versus
The State of Maharashtra & 4 Ors. ….Respondents

¶71

7 of 147

¶72

Sunny Thote

¶73

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶74

WITH

¶75

WRIT PETITION NO.4450 OF 2026

¶76

Rajendra Sampatrao Sakhre ….Petitioner Versus
The State of Maharashtra & 6 Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4452 OF 2026
Yuvraj s/o. Adhar Patil & 9 Ors. ….Petitioners Versus
The State of Maharashtra & 3 Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4454 OF 2026
Somnath Namdeo More & 1 Anr. ….Petitioners Versus
The State of Maharashtra & 7 Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4455 OF 2026
Janabai Madhukar Jaybhay & 1 Anr. ….Petitioners Versus
The State of Maharashtra & 4 Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4457 OF 2026
Ramchandra s/o. Tarachand Saindane ….Petitioner Versus
The State of Maharashtra & 7 Ors. ….Respondents

¶77

Sunny Thote 8 of 147

¶78

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶79

WITH

¶80

WRIT PETITION NO.4458 OF 2026

¶81

Pandurang Vikram Patil ….Petitioner Versus
The State of Maharashtra & 2 Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4460 OF 2026
Vikram Suresh Patil ….Petitioner Versus
The State of Maharashtra & 4 Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4461 OF 2026
Machhindra Sadashiv Waghmare ….Petitioner Versus
The State of Maharashtra & 5 Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4477 OF 2026
Devananad Shivaji Kokate & 1 Anr. ….Petitioners Versus
The State of Maharashtra & 6 Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4464 OF 2026
Dnyaneshwar s/o Vedu Chaudhari ….Petitioner Versus
The State of Maharashtra & 2 Ors. ….Respondents

¶82

9 of 147

¶83

Sunny Thote

¶84

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶85

WITH

¶86

WRIT PETITION NO.4465 OF 2026

¶87

Vilas Ramrao Machave ….Petitioner Versus
The State of Maharashtra & 5 Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4466 OF 2026
Santosh Kisan Sonwane ….Petitioner Versus
The State of Maharashtra & 5 Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4468 OF 2026
Pankaja Maganlal Wagh ….Petitioner Versus
The State of Maharashtra & 2 Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4467 OF 2026
Sanjay s/o Santosh Patil ….Petitioner Versus
The State of Maharashtra & 3 Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4469 OF 2026
Yuvraj Chandrabhan Lamb ….Petitioner Versus
The State of Maharashtra & 5 Ors. ….Respondents

¶88

10 of 147

¶89

Sunny Thote

¶90

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶91

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4471 OF 2026

¶92

Arun Ramkishan Misal ….Petitioner Versus
The State of Maharashtra & 5 Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4474 OF 2026
Ajay s/o Pundlik Shirsath ….Petitioner Versus
The State of Maharashtra & 2 Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4473 OF 2026
Shivaji Desu Chavan ….Petitioner Versus
The State of Maharashtra & 5 Ors. ….Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4475 OF 2026
Ambika Baliram Bagade ….Petitioner Versus
The State of Maharashtra & 5 Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4478 OF 2026
Swapnali Walmik Patil ….Petitioner Versus
The State of Maharashtra & 2 Ors. ….Respondents

¶93

11 of 147

¶94

Sunny Thote

¶95

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶96

WITH

¶97

WRIT PETITION NO.4480 OF 2026

¶98

Amol Vishnu Sanap & 1 Anr. ….Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & 6 Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4481 OF 2026 Vinaykumar Magan Wadekar ….Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & 6 Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4482 OF 2026 Bhagwat Ashok Khod ….Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & 5 Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4483 OF 2026 Shyamsundar Sadashiv Palse ….Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & 4 Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4484 OF 2026 Kalyan Dnyanoba Sanap & 2 Ors. ….Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & 5 Ors. ….Respondents

¶99

12 of 147

¶100

Sunny Thote

¶101

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶102

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4485 OF 2026 Santosh Laxman Patil ….Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & 4 Ors. ….Respondents

¶103

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4486 OF 2026
Shesherao Madhavrao Pune ….Petitioner Versus
The State of Maharashtra & 5 Ors. ….Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4487 OF 2026
Anil Narayan Lohar ….Petitioner Versus
The State of Maharashtra & 4 Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4488 OF 2026
Ganesh S/o Gangadhar Kotsthane ….Petitioner Versus
The State of Maharashtra & 4 Ors. ….Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4491 OF 2026
Raisa Parveen Mohammad Muneeruddin ….Petitioner Versus
The State of Maharashtra & 5 Ors. ….Respondents

¶104

13 of 147

¶105

Sunny Thote

¶106

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶107

WITH

¶108

WRIT PETITION NO.4489 OF 2026

¶109

Suryakant Kakasaheb Shinde ….Petitioner Versus
The State of Maharashtra & 5 Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4490 OF 2026
Haribhau Bhaiyasaheb Kakde ….Petitioner Versus
The State of Maharashtra & 5 Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4507 OF 2026
Dashrath Goma Vaykhar ….Petitioner Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4492 OF 2026
Manisha Bhanudas Desale & 10 Ors. ….Petitioners Versus
The State of Maharashtra & 8 Ors. ….Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4494 OF 2026
Sanjaykumar Vishwanath Bade ….Petitioner Versus
The State of Maharashtra & 5 Ors. ….Respondents

¶110

14 of 147

¶111

Sunny Thote

¶112

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶113

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4493 OF 2026

¶114

Babasaheb Ashruba Mulik ….Petitioner Versus
The State of Maharashtra & 5 Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4495 OF 2026
Bhagwan Ashruba Pawar ….Petitioner Versus
The State of Maharashtra & 3 Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4496 OF 2026
Dadasaheb Nanasaheb Pawar ….Petitioner Versus
The State of Maharashtra & 5 Ors. ….Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4497 OF 2026
Sagar s/o Rewaji More ….Petitioner Versus
The State of Maharashtra & 6 Ors. ….Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4510 OF 2026
Madhusudan Vishwaranjan Kulkarni ….Petitioner Versus
The State of Maharashtra & 5 Ors. ….Respondents

¶115

15 of 147

¶116

Sunny Thote

¶117

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶118

WITH

¶119

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2762 OF 2026

¶120

Babasaheb Ashruba Mulik ….Applicant

¶121

Versus

¶122

The State of Maharashtra & 5 Ors.

¶123

….Respondents

¶124

WITH

¶125

WRIT PETITION NO.10270 OF 2025

¶126

Mrs. Neelam Prakash Magar & 14 Ors. ….Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & 5 Ors. ….Respondents

¶127

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.38869 OF 2025 IN

¶128

WRIT PETITION NO.10270 OF 2025

¶129

Surekha Prabhakar Waydande & 1 Anr. ….Applicants IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Mrs. Neelam Prakash Magar & 14 Ors. ….Petitioners Versus

¶130

The State of Maharashtra & 4 Ors. ….Respondents

¶131

WITH

¶132

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.38867 OF 2025

¶133

¶134

WRIT PETITION NO.10270 OF 2025

¶135

Mrs. Neelam Prakash Magar & 2 Ors. ….Applicants

¶136

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

¶137

Sunny Thote 16 of 147

¶138

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶139

Mrs. Neelam Prakash Magar & 14 Ors. ….Petitioners

¶140

Versus

¶141

The State of Maharashtra & 4 Ors. ….Respondents

¶142

WITH

¶143

WRIT PETITION NO.10271 OF 2025

¶144

WITH

¶145

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.38865 OF 2025 WITH

¶146

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.38868 OF 2025

¶147

Mrs. Pramila Chandrakant Bhosale & 8 Ors. ….Petitioners

¶148

Versus

¶149

The State of Maharashtra & 5 Ors.

¶150

….Respondents

¶151

WITH

¶152

WRIT PETITION NO.16792 OF 2023

¶153

Asha Ambadas Kharat ….Petitioner Versus

¶154

The State of Maharashtra & 3 Ors. ….Respondents WITH

¶155

WRIT PETITION NO.16793 OF 2023

¶156

Balasaheb Harishchandra Anpat & 2 Ors. ….Petitioners Versus

¶157

The State of Maharashtra 3 Ors. ….Respondents

¶158

WITH

¶159

WRIT PETITION NO.16794 OF 2023

¶160

Ganesh Jayaji Giram & 3 Ors. ….Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra 3 Ors. ….Respondents

¶161

17 of 147

¶162

Sunny Thote

¶163

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶164

WITH

¶165

WRIT PETITION NO.16795 OF 2023

¶166

Gokul Kashinath Kalamkar & 11 Ors. ….Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & 4 Ors. ….Respondents

¶167

WITH

¶168

WRIT PETITION NO.16796 OF 2023 Shivaji Eknathrao Avhad & 7 Ors. ….Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & 3 Ors. ….Respondents

¶169

WITH

¶170

WRIT PETITION NO.16797 OF 2023 Maharashtra Rajya Divyang Karmachari Sanghatana & 23 Ors. ….Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & 4 Ors. ….Respondents

¶171

WITH

¶172

WRIT PETITION NO.16798 OF 2023

¶173

Shaila Tukaram Mungase ….Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & 4 Ors. ….Respondents

¶174

WITH

¶175

WRIT PETITION NO.16799 OF 2023

¶176

Rajendra Vitthal Thube & 12 Ors. ….Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & 4 Ors. ….Respondents

¶177

Sunny Thote 18 of 147

¶178

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶179

WITH

¶180

WRIT PETITION NO.16800 OF 2023

¶181

Jyoti Eknath Jadhav Versus	….Petitioner
The State of Maharashtra & 3 Ors. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.16801 OF	….Respondents 2023
Khandu Kashinath Bachkar & 3 Ors. Versus	….Petitioners
The State of Maharashtra & 3 Ors. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.16802 OF	….Respondents 2023
Shrikant Fakirba Kolhe & 1 nr. Versus	….Petitioners
The State of Maharashtra & 3 Ors. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.19547 OF	….Respondents 2024
Smt. Sangita Raghunath Sable Versus	….Petitioner
The State of Maharashtra 5 Ors.	….Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.19548 OF	2024
Eknath Dunda Sabale Versus	….Petitioner
The State of Maharashtra & 4 Ors.	….Respondents

¶182

19 of 147

¶183

Sunny Thote

¶184

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶185

WITH

¶186

WRIT PETITION NO.17568 OF 2025

¶187

Kiran Vishnu Ghadage & 32 Ors. ….Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & 6 Ors. ….Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.434 OF 2026
Smt. Jayshri Abhiman Pagar & 3 Ors. ….Petitioners Versus
The State of Maharashtra & 5 Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.17893 OF 2025
Ravindra Zumber Pimpale & 25 Ors. ….Petitioners Versus
The State of Maharashtra & 4 Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.17894 OF 2025
Lalita Madhavrao Dongre & 7 Ors. ….Petitioners Versus
The State of Maharashtra & 5 Ors. ….Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.38857 OF 2025
Shivdas S/o. Sadashiv Ginewad & 3 Ors. ….Applicants Versus
Lalita Madhavrao Dongare & 13 Ors. ….Respondents

¶188

20 of 147

¶189

Sunny Thote

¶190

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶191

WITH

¶192

WRIT PETITION NO.17895 OF 2025

¶193

Nilesh Bapurao Godhane & 35 Ors. ….Petitioners Versus
The State of Maharashtra & 5 Ors. ….Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.38858 OF 2025
Shivdas S/o. Sadashiv Ginewad & 3 Ors. ….Applicants Versus
Nilesh Bapurao Godhane & 41 Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.17896 OF 2025
Mithun Babulal Yadav & 8 Ors. ….Petitioners Versus
The State of Maharashtra & 5 Ors. ….Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.38859 OF 2025
Shivdas s/o. Sadashiv Ginewad & 3 Ors. ….Applicants Versus
Mithun s/o. Babulal Yadav & 14 Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.17897 OF 2025
Venkat Hullapa Akkemod & 12 Ors. ….Petitioners Versus
The State of Maharashtra & 5 Ors. ….Respondents

¶194

21 of 147

¶195

Sunny Thote

¶196

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶197

WITH

¶198

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.38860 OF 2025

¶199

Shivdas S/o. Sadashiv Ginewad & 3 Ors. Versus	….Applicants
Venkat Hullapa Akkemod & 18 Ors. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.17898 OF	….Respondents 2025
Ramkrishna Rangnath Mehetre Versus	….Petitioner
The State of Maharashtra & 4 Ors.	….Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.17899 OF	2025
Sachin Pitambar Patil & 33 Ors. Versus	….Petitioners
The State of Maharashtra & 6 Ors. WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.38861	….Respondents OF 2025
Ravindra S/o. Budha Sonawane Versus	….Applicant
Sachin Pitambar Patil & 40 Ors.	….Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.17900 OF	2025
Bajrang Ganpat Godse & 1 Anr. Versus	….Petitioners
The State of Maharashtra & 4 Ors.	….Respondents

¶200

22 of 147

¶201

Sunny Thote

¶202

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶203

WITH

¶204

WRIT PETITION NO.17901 OF 2025

¶205

Shri Sunil Dagadu More & 13 Ors. ….Petitioners Versus
The State of Maharashtra 7 Ors. ….Respondents
WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.38862 OF 2025
Ravindra S/o. Budha Sonawane ….Applicant Versus
Shri. Sunil Dagadu More & 21 Ors. ….Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.17902 OF 2025
Shri Ajitkumar Gulabrao Patil & 12 Ors. ….Petitioners Versus
The State of Maharashtra & 5 Ors. ….Respondents
WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.38863 OF 2025
Ravindra S/o. Budha Sonawane ….Applicant Versus
Shri. Ajitkumar Gulabrao Patil & 18 Ors. ….Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.17903 OF 2025
Mahendra Maruti Bankar & 1 Anr. ….Petitioners Versus
The State of Maharashtra & 6 Ors. ….Respondents

¶206

23 of 147

¶207

Sunny Thote

¶208

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶209

WITH

¶210

WRIT PETITION NO.17904 OF 2025

¶211

Yogesh Rambhau Aher ….Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary & Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.17905 OF 2025 Rajendra Govind Jadhav 1 Anr. ….Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & 8 Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.17906 OF 2025 Hema Suresh Jadhav ….Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & 6 Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.17907 OF 2025 Shivaji Mahadev Bodare & 12 Ors. ….Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & 8 Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.17908 OF 2025 Sunil Vasant Khade & 1 Anr. ….Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & 6 Ors. ….Respondents

¶212

24 of 147

¶213

Sunny Thote

¶214

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶215

WITH

¶216

WRIT PETITION NO.17910 OF 2025

¶217

Dipali Vikramsing Khanvilkar & 1 Anr. ….Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & 6 Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.17911 OF 2025 Asha Dadasaheb Khade ….Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & 6 Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.17912 OF 2025 Kalpana Ravindra Ghadge ….Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & 6 Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.17913 OF 2025 Manisha Mahadev Kshirsagar & 1 Anr. ….Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra 6 Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.17914 OF 2025 Jyoti Pramod Sankapal & 2 Ors. ….Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & 6 Ors. ….Respondents

¶218

25 of 147

¶219

Sunny Thote

¶220

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶221

WITH

¶222

WRIT PETITION NO.17915 OF 2025 WITH

¶223

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2199 OF 2026

¶224

Suresh Shivaji Yadav & 11 Ors. ….Petitioners Versus

¶225

The State of Maharashtra & 8 Ors. ….Respondents

¶226

WITH

¶227

WRIT PETITION NO.17916 OF 2025

¶228

WITH

¶229

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2202 OF 2026

¶230

Vijay Shiravji Tupe Versus

¶231

….Petitioner

¶232

The State of Maharashtra & 8 Ors. ….Respondents

¶233

WITH

¶234

WRIT PETITION NO.17917 OF 2025

¶235

Pralhad Namdev Barkade ….Petitioner

¶236

Versus

¶237

The State of Maharashtra & 6 Ors.

¶238

….Respondents

¶239

WITH

¶240

WRIT PETITION NO.17918 OF 2025 WITH

¶241

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.38866 OF 2025

¶242

Mrs. Vijaya Santosh Nilakhe & 1 Anr. ….Petitioners Versus

¶243

The State of Maharashtra & 5 Ors. ….Respondents

¶244

26 of 147

¶245

Sunny Thote

¶246

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶247

WITH

¶248

WRIT PETITION NO.17919 OF 2025

¶249

Mr. Dhanaji Rajaram Deshmukh & 3 Ors. ….Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & 6 Ors. ….Respondents

¶250

WITH

¶251

WRIT PETITION NO.17920 OF 2025 WITH

¶252

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2224 OF 2026

¶253

Hanmantrao Shivaji Awaghade & 1 Anr. ….Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & 8 Ors. ….Respondents

¶254

WITH

¶255

WRIT PETITION NO.17921 OF 2025

¶256

Mrs. Vanita Hanmant Borate ….Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & 2 Ors. ….Respondents

¶257

WITH

¶258

WRIT PETITION NO.17922 OF 2025

¶259

WITH

¶260

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2222 OF 2026

¶261

Prakash Bhimaji Raskar & 18 Ors. ….Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & 8 Ors. ….Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.17923 OF 2025 Kishor S/O Gulabrao Pisa ….Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & 2 Ors. ….Respondents

¶262

27 of 147

¶263

Sunny Thote

¶264

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶265

WITH

¶266

WRIT PETITION NO.17925 OF 2025

¶267

Milind Dau Waghmare & 22 Ors. ….Petitioners Versus

¶268

The State of Maharashtra & 5 Ors. ….Respondents

¶269

¶270

Mr. Narendra V. Bandiwadekar, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Vinayak R. Kumbhar, Mr. Rajendra B. Khaire, Mr. Aniket S. Phapale i/b. Ms. Ashwini N. Bandiwadekar, for the Petitioner in WP17921/2025.

¶271

Mr. Parag V. Barde (through V.C.), for the Petitioner in WP/4325/2026 and WP/433/2026.

¶272

Ms. Padmaja Malgaonkar i/b. Mr. Suresh S. Pakale, Senior Advocate for the Petitioner in WP/834/2026 a/w. connected Writ Petitions.

¶273

Mr. Sanjeev Kadam a/w. Mr. Prashant Raul, Ms. Varsha Thorat and Mr. Gaurav Pande, for the Petitioners in WP/10270/2025, WP/10271/2025, WPST/27916/2025 and WPST/27732/2025.

¶274

Mr. Suvidh S. Kulkarni, for the Petitioners WP/3436/2026, WP/3462/2026, WP/3465/2026 and WP/3470/2026, WP/4038/2026,WP/4445/2026, WP/4451/2026, WP/4450/2026, WP/4454/2026, WP/4455/2026, WP/4461/2026, WP/4477/2026, WP/4465/2026, WP/4466/2026, WP/4469/2026, WP/4473/2026, WP/4475/2026, WP/4480/2026, WP/4481/2026, WP/4482/2026, WP/4483/2026, WP/4484/2026, WP/4486/2026, WP/4489/2026, WP/4490/2026, WP/4507/2026, WP/4492/2026, WP/4494/2026, WP/4493/2026, WP/4496/2026, WP/4510/2026, WP/16793/2023, WP/16794/2023, WP/16796/2023, WP/16800/2023, WP/16801/2023, WP/16802/2023, WP/19547/2024, WP/19548/2024, WP/17894/2025, WP/17895/2025, WP/17896/2025 and WP/17897/2025.

¶275

WP/16800/2023, WP/19547/2024, WP/17895/2025,

¶276

Ms. Pradnya Talekar (through V.C.) a/w. Mr. Vidyasagar Bhave and Mr. Yogesh Morey i/b. Talekar and Associates, for the Petitioners in WP/17899/2025,WP/4452/2026,WP/4460/2026,WP/4464/2026,WP/

¶277

28 of 147

¶278

Sunny Thote

¶279

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶280

4468/2026,WP/4467/2026,WP/4474/2026,WP/4478/2026,WP/ 4485/2026, for the Petitioners and for the Applicant in IA/2036/2026.

¶281

Mr. Arvind G. Ambetkar a/w. Mr. Sandeep Gupta, for the Petitioner in WP/4488/2026.

¶282

Mr. Bhupesh Patil (through V.C.), for the Petitioner in WP/17923/2025.

¶283

Mr. Saurabh Patil a/w. Mr. Dhanraj Lodha a/w. Ms. Dharni Divekar and Mr. Kiran Shinde i/b. Tungar Hrishikesh, for the Petitioner in WP/4033/2026.

¶284

Mr. Vivek B. Rane, for the Petitioner in WP/2729/2026,WP/2771/2026,WP/2774/2026 and WP/2997/2026. Ms. Sakshi Thombre i/b. Mr. Bhavesh Paithane, for the Petitioner in WP/2378/2026.

¶285

Ms. Sakshi Thombre i/b. Mr. Vivek Rane, for the Petitioner in WP/433/2026 and WP/434/2026.

¶286

Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar (through V.C.) for Respondent Nos.5 and 6 in WP/17895/2025, WP/17894/2025,WP/17897/2025,WP/17896/2025 and WP/1444/2026.

¶287

Mr. Ashwin R. Kapadnis, for the Nashik Zilla Parishad in WP/8611/2023, WP/433/2026, WP/434/2026, WP/834/2026, WP/2971/2026, WP/2997/2026 and WP/2378/2026.

¶288

Mr. Pandurang H. Gaikwad a/w. Mr. S. V. Gavand, for Respondent Nos.6 and 7 in WP/17568/2025.

¶289

Mr. Kedar B. Dighe, for Respondent Nos.2,4 and 5-PCMC in WP/2729/2026.

¶290

Mr. P. P. Kakade, Addl. GP a/w. Mr. V. G. Badgujar, AGP, Ms. Priyanka Chavan, AGP, Ms. P. N. Diwan, AGP for the RespondentState.

¶291

Ms. Sejal Pawar, Law Consultant, Persons with Disability Empowerment Department, present.

¶292

29 of 147

¶293

Sunny Thote

¶294

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶295

Mrs. Sunita Ghadiyale, Deputy Secretary, Persons with Disability Empowerment Department, present.

¶296

**** CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ. RESERVED ON : 09^th APRIL, 2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 06^th MAY, 2026

¶297

JUDGMENT (PER : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶298

INDEX

¶299

Sr.	Particulars	Page Nos.
No.
1.	Specimen prayers reproduced from some Petitions	31- 43
2.	Summary of the oral submissions on behalf of the Petitioners	43 - 58
3.	Summary of the oral submissions on behalf of the Respondents/State and the Zilla Prishad	58 - 65
4.	Submissions on behalf of Respondent Nos.2, 4 and 5 (Writ Petition No.2729 of 2026)	65 & 66
5.	Submissions on behalf of Respondent Nos.6 and 7 (Writ Petition (St) No.40880 of 2025	66 -73
6.	Our Analysis and Conclusions	73 to 139
	(a) Salient features of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Bill, 2014	(85 - 87)
	(b) Primary objects of the RPwD Act, 2016	(88)
	(c) The Schedule - Specified Disability	(89 - 93)

¶300

30 of 147

¶301

Sunny Thote

¶302

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶303

	(d)	The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016	(93 - 96)
	(e)	The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017	(97 -98)
	(f)	Order and Directions	(132 -139)
7.	Ann	exure ‘X’ Enclosed	140 - 147

¶304

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally

¶305

by consent of the parties.

¶306

The prayers put forth by the Petitioners in all these Petitions, are more or less similar. As such, we are reproducing some of the prayers, as specimens, which broadly cover the grievances put forth by these Petitioners, hereunder :

¶307

WRIT PETITION NO.17568 OF 2025

¶308

(A) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, and call for papers and proceeding from the custody of the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 in respect of the impugned and respect Orders/Communications dated 11th December 2025 (Exhibit L) and after examining the legality, validity and judicial propriety thereof, quash and set aside the same.

¶309

(B) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to exercise powers vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and issue a writ of Mandamus and/or Writ in the nature of

¶310

31 of 147

¶311

Sunny Thote

¶312

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶313

Mandamus, Order and direction directing Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 not to take any action on the basis of the impugned Orders/Communications dated 11th December 2025 (Exhibit L) , and further not to disturb them and/or transfer them from their present schools as specifically set out (Exhibit A) to the Petition and further not to transfer any other teacher to the schools where the Petitioners are presently posted.

¶314

(C) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to give a declaration that the impugned Govt. Resolution dated 16th June 2025 (Exhibit N) is ultra vires to Section 56 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 r/w. The Maharashtra Zilla Parishad (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1967, and, so, the same is liable to be set aside.

¶315

(D) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the execution and implementation of the Orders/Communications dated 11th December 2025 (Exhibit L)

¶316

(E) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 not to take any action on the basis of the impugned Orders/Communications dated 11th December 2025 (Exhibit L) , and further not to disturbed them and/or transfer them from their present schools as specifically set out Exhibit A to the Petition and further not to transfer any other teacher to the schools where the Petitioners are presently posted.

¶317

WRIT PETITION NO.834 OF 2026

¶318

(A) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or

¶319

32 of 147

¶320

Sunny Thote

¶321

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶322

any other appropriate Writ, and call for papers and proceeding from the custody of the Respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5 in respect of the impugned Communications dated 7th January 2026 (Exhibit F) and 8 th January 2026 (Exhibit G) and after examining the legality, validity and judicial propriety thereof, quash and set aside the same. (B) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to exercise powers vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and issue a writ of Mandamus and/or Writ in the nature of Mandamus, Order and direction directing Respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5 not to take any action on the basis of the impugned Communications dated 7th January 2026 (Exhibit F) and 8th January 2026 (Exhibit G), and further Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 be restrained from making the Petitioners to appear before Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 2 be directed not to undertake reassessment/re-verification process of the Petitioners disability as per the direction of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and not to take punitive action on the basis of the report to be submitted by Respondent No. 2.

¶323

(C) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to give a declaration that the impugned Govt. Circular dated 16th June 2025, Govt. Resolution dated 9th October 2025 and DO Order dated 18th September 2025 (Exhibit M Colly.) are ultra vires Section 56 of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, r / W the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1967, and so the same is liable to be set aside.

¶324

(D) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the execution and implementation of the impugned Communications dated 7th January 2026 (Exhibit F) and 8th January 2026 (Exhibit G), and further Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 be

¶325

33 of 147

¶326

Sunny Thote

¶327

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶328

restrained from making the Petitioners to appear before Respondent No. 2 for re-verification and re-assessment of their disability and further Respondent No. 2 be directed not to undertake reassessment/re-verification process of the Petitioners disability as per the direction of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and not to take punitive action on the basis of the report to be submitted by Respondent No. 2.

¶329

(E) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct Respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5 not to take any action on the basis of the impugned Govt. Circular dated 16th June 2025, Govt. Resolution dated 9th October 2025 and DO Order dated 18th September 2025 (Exhibit M colly.) and Communication dated 7th January 2026 (Exhibit F) and 8th January 2026 (Exhibit G) and the report to be submitted by Respondent No. 2.

¶330

WRIT PETITION NO.2729 OF 2026

¶331

(A) This Hon'ble Court be pleased exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, and call for papers and proceeding from the custody of the Respondent No.s 2, 4 and 5 in respect of the impugned Circular dated 03.02.2026 (Exhibit H) and communication dated 10.02.2026 (Exhibit L) and after examining the legality, validity and judicial propriety thereof, quash and set aside the same.

¶332

(B) This Hon'ble Court be exercise powers vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, Order and Direction directing the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 not to take any action on basis of the impugned Circular

¶333

34 of 147

¶334

Sunny Thote

¶335

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶336

dated 03.02.2026 (Exhibit H) and communication dated 10.02.2026 (Exhibit L) and further Respondents No. 4 and 5 be restrained from making the Petitioner to appear before Respondent No.2 and Respondent No. 2 be directed not to undertake re-assessment/ reverification process of the Petitioners disability as per the direction of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and not to take punitive action on the basis of the report to be submitted by Respondent No.2.

¶337

(C) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to give a declaration that the impugned Govt. Resolution dated 16th June 2025, Govt. Resolution dated 9th October 2025 (Exhibit E colly.) is ultra vires to Section 56 of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 r/w. The Maharashtra Corporation (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1967, and, so, the same is liable to be set aside.

¶338

(D) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the impugned Circular dated 03.02.2026 (Exhibit H) and communication dated 10.02.2026 (Exhibit L) and further Respondents No. 4 and 5 be restrained from making the Petitioners to appear before Respondent No.2 and Respondent No. 2 be directed not to undertake re-assessment/ reverification process of the Petitioners disability as per the direction of Respondent No. 4 and 5 and not to take punitive action on the basis of the report to be submitted by Respondent No.2.

¶339

(E) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct Respondent Nos. 2, 4, and 5 not to take any action on the basis of the impugned Govt. Circular dated 16th June 2025, Govt Resolution dated 9th October 2025 and impugned Circular dated 03.02.2026 (Exhibit H) , communication dated 10.02.2026 (Exhibit L), and the report to be submitted by Respondent no.2.

¶340

35 of 147

¶341

Sunny Thote

¶342

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶343

WRIT PETITION NO.17921 OF 2025

¶344

(A) Rule Nisi be issued, and records and proceedings be called for.

¶345

(B) By a suitable writ, order or direction, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 6.8.2025 issued by the Respondent No. 3, and accordingly, the Petitioner be held to be entitled to the benefits of Clause 1.8 r/w. Clause 4.2 of the Government Resolution dated 18.6.2024 issued by the Respondent No. 1, and accordingly, the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 may be directed not to consider the name of the Petitioner for transfer in the Intra-District Teacher Transfer Process 2025.

¶346

(C) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition, the execution, operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 6.8.2025 issued by the Respondent No. 3, may kindly be stayed.

¶347

(D) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition, the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 may be restrained from taking coercive steps/action against the Petitioner, including the transfer of the Petitioner from the present school, i.e. Zilla Parishad Primary School, Lonand Boys2, on the basis of the impugned order dated 6.8.2025 issued by the Respondent No. 3.

¶348

Amended vide leave granted on 19.12.2025

¶349

(D1) By a suitable writ, order or direction, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 12.2025 [EXHIBIT-O] issued by the Respondent No. 3 directing the Petitioner to subject herself to reinspection of her Divyang Certificate before the

¶350

36 of 147

¶351

Sunny Thote

¶352

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶353

District Hospital, Aundh, Pune [Sangavi Phata] and accordingly it be held and declare that the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 do not have any power, authority and jurisdiction to order such reinspection of Divyang Certificate of the Petitioner.

¶354

(D2) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition, the execution, operation and implementation of the impugned order dated .12.2025 [EXHIBIT-O] issued by the Respondent No. 3, may kindly be stayed.

¶355

(D3) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition, the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 may be restrained from taking any further action or steps against the Petitioner on the basis of the re-inspection of DivyangCertificate of the Petitioner conducted by the District Hospital, Aundh, Pune [Sangavi Phata] in pursuance of the impugned order dated 12.2025 [EXHIBIT-O] issued by the Respondent No.3.

¶356

WRIT PETITION NO.17899 OF 2025

¶357

(A) To quash and set aside the impugned Communication dated 10.10.2025 issued by the respondent No.6- CEO Jalgaon (EXHIBIT-“H” Colly) , by issuing a writ of certiorari, or any other writ, order or direction as the case may be;

¶358

(B) To grant an interim stay to the impugned Communication dated 10.10.2025 issued by the respondent No.6- CEO Jalgaon (EXHIBIT-"H" Colly), pending hearing and final disposal of this petition;

¶359

(C) To grant interim injunction restraining the respondents, their agents, their subordinates from implementing, giving effect to the impugned Communication dated 10.10.2025 issued by the

¶360

37 of 147

¶361

Sunny Thote

¶362

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶363

respondent No.6- CEO Jalgaon (EXHIBІТ-“Н” Colly) , pending hearing and final disposal of this petition;

¶364

WRIT PETITION NO.16796 OF 2023

¶365

(A) Rule may kindly be issued.

¶366

(B) That, this Hon'ble Court may please to pass a necessary writ, order or direction in like nature and quash and set aside the impugned communication dated 11/07/2023 to the extent of the petitioners issued by respondent no.3, thereby referring the petitioners to the Dean of Sasun Hospital at Pune.

¶367

(C) That, this Hon'ble Court may please to pass necessary writ, order or direction in like nature and direct the respondent no.3 to prohibit from directing the petitioners to appear before the medical board at Sasun Hospital or any other recognized hospital for reverification in view of the fact that, the petitioners are already subjected for reverification and is in violation of section 3,6 & 7 of the Act 2016.

¶368

(D) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present writ petition, the effect, operation, and execution of the impugned communication dated 11/07/2023 to the extent of the petitioners issued by respondent no.3, thereby referring the petitioners to the Dean of Sasun Hospital at Pune.

¶369

(E) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present writ petition, no coercive action may be taken in respect of the petitioners.

¶370

[READ ‘SASOON’ HOSPITAL]

¶371

38 of 147

¶372

Sunny Thote

¶373

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶374

WRIT PETITION NO.4325 OF 2026

¶375

(A) By issuing an appropriate writ, order, direction or any other order in the nature of a writ, the Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the communication dated 11.02.2026 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad Ahilyanagar.

¶376

(B) Pending hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition, Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to stay the effect, implementation, execution and operation of the communication dated 11.02.2026 petitioner issued by respondents.

¶377

WRIT PETITION NO.17896 OF 2025 (Old Writ Petition No 13552 of 2025)

¶378

(A) Rule may kindly be issued.

¶379

(B) That, this Hon'ble Court may please to issue necessary writ, order, or direction in like nature and quash and set aside the impugned communication, much less an order dated 16/09/2025, 19/09/2025 & 26/09/2025 issued by respondent no.6 upon the order passed by the respondent no.5.

¶380

(C) That, this Hon'ble Court may please to pass a necessary writ, order or direction in like nature and direct the respondents Nos 5 & 6 to prohibit them from directing the petitioners to appear before the District committee at Nanded or any other recognised hospital for reverification.

¶381

(D) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present writ petition, the effect, operation, and execution of the impugned communication dated 16/09/2025, 19/09/2025 & 26/09/2025 to the extent of the petitioners issued by respondent no.6, thereby referring the petitioners to the District Committee at Nanded.

¶382

39 of 147

¶383

Sunny Thote

¶384

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶385

(E) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present writ petition, no coercive action may be taken in respect of the petitioners.

¶386

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 38859 of 2025 IN

¶387

WRIT PETITION NO.17896 OF 2025 (Old Writ Petition No 13552 of 2025)

¶388

(A) This Hon'ble Court may kindly direct the petitioner to add the applicant as party respondent in the array of Writ Petition No. 13552/2025.

¶389

(B) Any other relief deemed fit may please be granted

¶390

WRIT PETITION NO.10270/2025

¶391

(A) The rule be issued.

¶392

(B) That by an appropriate writ, order, direction issued by this Hon'ble Court, the record and proceedings of the reports, if any, regarding the Petitioner’s disability enquiry be called for.

¶393

(C) That by an appropriate writ, order, direction issued by this Hon'ble Court, the directions in clause 3 of the Government resolution dated 16.06.2025 may kindly be declared illegal, and the same may be quashed and set aside.

¶394

(D) That the consequential show cause notices dated 08.07.2025 and/or any action against the Petitioners on the basis of reports in view of the G. R. dated 16.06.2025 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

¶395

(E) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present writ petition, the effect, operation, and implementation of para 3 of the Government Resolution dated 16.06.2025, and any steps consequential thereto, including the show cause notices, may kindly be stayed.

¶396

40 of 147

¶397

Sunny Thote

¶398

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶399

(H) That by an appropriate writ, order, direction issued by this Hon'ble Court, an undated communication/order/notice issued by the Education Officer, Satara Zilla Parishad (outward Education/Pri/Aastha-1/9854/2025) directing the Petitioners for second re-examination, may kindly be declared illegal and the same may be quashed and set aside.

¶400

(H1) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the present writ petition, the effect, operation, and implementation of an undated communication/order/notice issued by the Education Officer, Satara Zilla Parishad (outward No. and any steps Education/Pri/Aastha1/9854/2025) consequential thereto may kindly be stayed.

¶401

(H2) Ad-interim relief in terms of the prayer clause (hl) above may kindly be granted.

¶402

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.38868 OF 2025 IN

¶403

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10271 OF 2025

¶404

(A) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the main writ petition No. 10270 of 2025, any further action, including transfer on the basis of the issue of an alleged improper disability certificate, may kindly be stayed.

¶405

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.38869 OF 2025 IN CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10270 OF 2025

¶406

(A) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to set aside the orders of suspension of the Applicants passed on 01.08.2025.

¶407

41 of 147

¶408

Sunny Thote

¶409

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶410

(B) That pending the hearing and final disposal of 14 pt of the main writ petition No. 10270 of 2025, the effect and operation of the suspension orders dated 01.08.2025 may kindly be stayed.

¶411

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.38867 OF 2025 IN

¶412

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10270 OF 2025

¶413

(A) That the letters/directions issued to the applicants, subjecting them to examination, may kindly be quashed and set aside.

¶414

(B) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the main writ petition No. 10270 of 2025, the Letters/directions issued to applicants, subjecting them to re-examination, may kindly be stayed.

¶415

WRIT PETITION NO. 4468 OF 2026

¶416

(A) To quash the impugned order dated 23.01.2026, placing the petitioner under suspension issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon (EXHIBIT-"G") by issuing writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction.

¶417

(B) To grant an interim stay to the operation, execution and implementation of the impugned order dated 23.01.2026, placing the petitioner under suspension issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon (EXHIBIT-"G"), pending hearing and final disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶418

(C) To direct the respondents to grant all consequential benefits as a sequel to the quashing of the impugned order dated 23.01.2026, placing the petitioner under suspension issued by the

¶419

42 of 147

¶420

Sunny Thote

¶421

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶422

Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, by issuing writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction.

¶423

(D) To quash and set aside the Government Resolution dated 09.10.2025 issued by the Persons with Disabilities Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai (EXHIBIT-"E"), by issuing a writ of certiorari, or any other writ, order or direction as the case may be.’

¶424

We have extensively considered the oral submissions of

¶425

the learned Senior Advocates/Advocates/Additional G.P./AGPs, for the appearing parties. All of them have tendered lengthy written notes of submissions. We do not wish to enlarge the size of this Judgment by referring to their entire written submissions. Suffice it to say that we are summarising their oral and written submissions and would be adverting to them as we delve upon the issues raised in all these cases.

¶426

SUMMARY OF THE ORAL/WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

¶427

The oral and written submissions of the Counsel on

¶428

behalf of the Petitioners, are summarised in the following paragraphs.

¶429

43 of 147

¶430

Sunny Thote

¶431

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶432

A] Whether the Zilla Parishad is having power/jurisdiction to direct the Petitioners for re-verification and re-assessment?

¶433

a. Some of the Petitioners have joined service from the disability quota and have completed almost 15 to 20 years in employment. Prior to their appointments, they were subjected to physical fitness tests and medical documents were also verified. Some developed disabilities during their employment, either due to illness or an accident.

¶434

b. Some of the Petitioners were appointed from the disability quota in view of Rule IV of Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Service (Recruitments Rule) 1967, after due examination and scrutiny of their documents, including medical records. Their service records have been updated accordingly.

¶435

c. New norms of the medical examination regarding percentage of disability are introduced under the 2016 Act and most of the Petitioners were appointed prior thereto.

¶436

d. The Petitioners rely upon para 12 and 13 of the interim order dated 03.05.2023 passed by the Aurangabad bench of this Court in WP No. 4756 of 2023 in the case of Jandeo Navnath

¶437

Mutkule vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., which reads as under:

¶438

44 of 147

¶439

Sunny Thote

¶440

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶441

“12. As far as new norms of the medical examination regarding percentage of disability are concerned, those are made under the Persons With Disabilities Act, 2016.

¶442

Admittedly, the Petitioner is appointed on 05.10.2005 as Shikshan Sevak and from time to time he had given disability certificates to the Respondents. Therefore, it is very difficult to accept that he had committed any fraud while submitting his disability certificates. Further the norms as per provisions of the Persons With Disabilities Act, 2016 cannot be applied to the case of the Petitioner retrospectively. Therefore, action against Petitioner on the basis of alleged fraud and disciplinary action as well as suspension is not justifiable and sustainable. It causes injustice to him. The Chief Executive Officer Respondent No.2, Zilla Parishad, Beed and Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed have erred in taking disciplinary action against the Petitioner, which is not sustainable in the eye of law. Hence, the disciplinary action and the letter dated 06.04.2023 deserve to be quashed and set aside. The argument of the learned AGP is, therefore, not acceptable in this regard.”

¶443

e. The Petitioners, who have suffered or met with an

¶444

injury during the course of service and have availed the PwD benefits, are in receipt of disability certificates in State format, Central format or the UDID cards. These certificates have been issued to the Petitioners by duly constituted Medical Boards, several years ago.

¶445

45 of 147

¶446

Sunny Thote

¶447

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶448

f. Hence, in view of Rule 19, once a certificate of

¶449

disability is found to be valid in the eyes of law, the Petitioners are entitled for the facilities, concessions and benefits as per the schemes of the government.

¶450

B] Whether an alternate remedy is available?

¶451

a. Chapter-X of the 2016 Act deals with certification of specified disabilities. Section 59 of the said Act provides an appeal against a decision of the certifying authority, wherein any person aggrieved with the decision of the certifying authority may file an appeal to the appellate authority and the appellate authority shall decide the same in accordance with law. The State has not filed any statutory appeal before the competent authority.

¶452

b. Government Resolution or executive instructions

¶453

cannot override the statutory provisions.

¶454

c. ‘Any person’ u/s 58 & 59 denotes, an employee/

¶455

candidate.

¶456

d. Petitioners have tendered an application in view of Rule

¶457

17 of the 2016 Act to the medical authority, through the competent authority and the competent authority/ medical authority has issued

¶458

46 of 147

¶459

Sunny Thote

¶460

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶461

certificates of disability under Rule 18 after assessing their disability.

¶462

e. Unless and until the disability certificate granted to the Petitioner by the duly constituted medical board is not set aside, the Respondent State will not have any authority to direct the Petitioners to submit them for re-verification and re-examination.

¶463

C] Whether the Respondents have power to review ?

¶464

There is no provision in the 2016 Act along with its

¶465

rules vesting the Respondents with the power of review or revision.

¶466

D] Whether the order of suspension is maintainable in the eyes of law ?

¶467

a. It is a settled principle of law that prior to issuance of order of suspension, the employee ought to have been served a show cause notice. However, in the case of Beed district the Respondent Zilla Parishad has suspended its employee without issuance of show cause notice (reason for suspension – employees are not having UDID card). The said employees have already applied for UDID Cards and they have placed a copies of the applications on record.

¶468

47 of 147

¶469

Sunny Thote

¶470

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶471

b. Disability certificates issued to the Petitioners are

¶472

permanent in nature and have been issued after following the due procedure of law.

¶473

c. The show cause notices are in contravention of Rule 18, 19 and 20 of Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Rules) 2017.

¶474

d. Rule 20 lays down that the certificate issued under the 1995 Act shall continue to be valid after the commencement of the 2016 Act for period specified therein. Therefore, action of the Government for re-examination, re-scrutiny is contrary to the rules framed by the Government itself.

¶475

e. The Act of 2016 does not permit the authorities to reexamine the persons holding certificates.

¶476

f. According to Section 102 of the 2016 Act, any action taken under the 1995 Act is deemed to have been taken under the new Act.

¶477

g. Government Resolution dated 16.06.2025 applies to teachers covered by class-1 of the special category as per earlier GR dated 18.06.2024. This class contains the categories as laid down under GR dated 14.01.2011. Perusal of the said GR dated

¶478

48 of 147

¶479

Sunny Thote

¶480

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶481

14.01.2011, makes it clear that the certificates issued prior to the said resolution are considered to be valid for all purposes. Hence, the certificates issued prior to 2011 are also valid.

¶482

h. The State has no power to inspect or scrutinize the UDID certificate issued by the Central Government.

¶483

i. The RPwD Act, 2016 is a Central legislation and State Government has no power to issue a resolution or notification which supplants the provision of 2016 Act or rules framed thereunder.

¶484

j. State Government can only scrutinize the genuineness of certificate issued to the disabled persons.

¶485

k. The circular issued by the Commissioner for Welfare of the Disabled Persons lays down that the authority issuing certificate has no power to review the same. It is a settled law that an authority passing an order cannot review the same.

¶486

l. Out of 30 Petitioners in this group, 23 have not secured employment on the basis of disability certificate quota. 26 candidates are in service for almost 23 years. 9 candidates have not availed any benefits under the provisions of the disability Act.

¶487

49 of 147

¶488

Sunny Thote

¶489

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶490

In view of the above, the Petitioners submit that the issues before this Hon’ble Court are as under :

¶491

A. Whether the Act of 2016 and the Rules of 2017 recognize the rights of employers to ask its employees with disability certificates or with benchmark disability to undergo a fresh assessment of their disability ?

¶492

a. Section 2(r) defines persons with benchmark disability

¶493

to mean a person with not less than 40 percent of a specified disability.

¶494

b. Section 2(s) defines a person with disability, Section 2(t) defines a person with disability having high support needs and Section 2(zc) defines specified disability.

¶495

c. Under the Act of 2016, a benchmark disabled person is

¶496

entitled to avail reservation in employment as provided u/s 34 Chapter VI of the Act.

¶497

d. Such person is entitled to employment under the reserved quota. However, the position of an employee who is already in service and has acquired disability during the course of

¶498

50 of 147

¶499

Sunny Thote

¶500

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶501

employment, is different. 40% disability is not required for such employees. The only requirement for them is that they should be certified as disabled by the certifying authority in accordance with the act and rules. Where the specified disability has been defined in measurable terms in the schedule, 40% specified disability is not required to be qualified for benefits.

¶502

e. Under Rules 17-20 of the Rules of 2017 and Section 59 of the Act of 2016, if employers are aggrieved with the decision of the certifying authority, they can file appeals. However Z.Ps. have not filed any such appeal before the appellate authority.

¶503

f. In that view, the action of forcing the Petitioner to go for reassessment of their disability is illegal and violative of S.3, 6, 7 and 20 of the said Act.

¶504

g. Authenticity of the certificates submitted by the candidates seeking employment, are to be verified during the recruitment process. If it is found that the certificate submitted by the candidates are forged or obtained by fraud, fabrication etc. punitive action is permissible in law. However, employer cannot suo-moto re-assess the authenticity of the certificates without a

¶505

lawful reason.

¶506

Sunny Thote 51 of 147

¶507

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶508

h. The process of re-assessment undertaken by the ZP are not in conformity with S.56, 58 of the Act and Clause 17 and 18 of the Rules.

¶509

i. The Respondent State has been issuing appropriate instructions directing the Z.P. to undertake the verification of documents and not re-assessment of the same.

¶510

B. Whether the Respondent ZP is entitled to take action against the Petitioners whose disability is found to be less than 40% in the re-assessment process?

¶511

a. There is no requirement of 40% to be fulfilled by persons who are already in employment. The only requirement for persons who acquire disability during the course of service is that they should have a disability certificate issued by the certifying authority.

¶512

b. Disability or illness is degenerative/progressive or curable, therefore, improvement is natural. Hence no fault could be attributed to the Petitioners if the disability is found to have decreased by the certifying authority.

¶513

52 of 147

¶514

Sunny Thote

¶515

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶516

C. Whether there are any guidelines for assessment by issuing administrative/executive instructions ?

¶517

a. The Respondent State has no power and authority to prescribe the guidelines for the purpose of assessing the extent of disability in view of S.56 of the Act. Such powers are not delegated to the State Government under the act and the State Government cannot supersede statutory provisions by administrative or executive instructions.

¶518

D. Whether the Petitioners are entitled for protection u/s 3, 6, 7 and 20 of the Act of 2016 ?

¶519

a. The Petitioners are certified as disabled by the certifying authority under the act enacted by the Central

¶520

Government for empowerment of disabled persons.

¶521

E. The exercise undertaken by the Respondent Education Officer is unsustainable in law. He has no power and authority to take any action against the Petitioner teachers. The impugned actions frustrates the very object of the Act and violates Section 3 and Section 6 of the said Act.

¶522

53 of 147

¶523

Sunny Thote

¶524

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶525

a. Respondent EO has recorded an ex-parte observation that the Petitioners have committed misconduct as defined under Clause 3 of The Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Conduct) Rules, 1967 i.e. every Parishad servant shall at all times maintain absolute integrity and devotion in duty. According to the Petitioners the Respondent EO has misread the whole issue and has initiated the impugned action.

¶526

b. The Respondent EO has proceeded on the assumption that the Petitioner had misguided the Z.P. by furnishing incorrect information. The said assumption is baseless as no such allegations were ever made against the Petitioners.

¶527

c. Moreover, Respondent No.7 is neither the appointing authority nor the disciplinary authority as provided under the relevant rules and, hence, has no power to take any punitive action against the Petitioners.

¶528

d. Respondent No.7 has not followed the statutory procedure prescribed under the rules. Respondent No.7 has recorded its ex-parte observation without giving the Petitioners the opportunity of being heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

¶529

54 of 147

¶530

Sunny Thote

¶531

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶532

F. The Circular dated 16.06.2025 on the basis of which

¶533

the impugned action was initiated, is ultra vires Section 56 of the Act.

¶534

a. Vide the said Circular the Respondent State notified guidelines for the purpose of assessing the extent of a specified disability in a person. On the basis of the said Circular, the disability of the Petitioners was freshly assessed by the certifying authority (3 members committee). The said authority submitted its report to the Respondent Z.P. and, on the basis of the said report, the impugned action was initiated by the Respondent EO.

¶535

b. The Respondent State has no power and authority to issue the said Government Circular and prescribe/notify guidelines for assessing the extent of specified disability in a person.

¶536

c. Clause 5 of the said Circular is also ultra vires the Maharashtra ZP (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1967.

¶537

G. The three Members Committee of Satara District (Certifying Authority) has no power to review its own decision.

¶538

55 of 147

¶539

Sunny Thote

¶540

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶541

a. It is settled principle of law that unless a power of review is specifically or by necessary implication provided, the authority cannot review its own decision, unless the order is obtained by exercising fraud. The phrase fraud is not a colloquial term, but it has a judicially recognized ambit. It is not the case of the Respondent that the Petitioners have obtained the certificate by playing fraud. Therefore, the exercise undertaken by them is not sustainable in law.

¶542

b. The Circular is ultra vires Section 56. Moreover, there is a specific provision of appeal u/s 59 of the Act r/w Rule 8 of the Maharashtra State Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2024, for persons aggrieved by the certifying authority.

¶543

c. Re-verification and re-assessment of the disability certificate or the disability is not permissible.

¶544

d. Respondent No.7 forcibly compelled the Petitioners to

¶545

appear before the District Civil Surgeon, Satara for their reverification of their certificates. The said Authority re-assessed the Petitioners by applying new standards introduced by the Central Government vide Government Resolution dated 12.03.2024. Such

¶546

56 of 147

¶547

Sunny Thote

¶548

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶549

exercise is not permissible and contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Act and the Rules.

¶550

e. Respondent No.8 has no power or authority to direct reassessment of the disabilities of the Petitioner without following Chapter V of Rules of 2024. Neither Respondent No.6 and Respondent No.7 nor Respondent No.8, have disclosed the reason for re-assessing. Respondent No.9 cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the Civil Surgeon, Satara.

¶551

f. The original certificate was issued to the Petitioners after examination of their disability by the Competent Authority/Certifying Officer. Thereafter, when the new Act came into being, they were once again asked to take similar exercise as it was done earlier and the Competent Authority/Certifying Officer once again examined the Petitioners and the Petitioners were issued disability certificates (more than 40%). Similar exercise was undertaken when UDID cards were issued in their favour. The said certificate is not challenged or set aside by the Competent Authority. In view of the same the impugned exercise undertaken by the Respondents are unwarranted and unconstitutional.

¶552

57 of 147

¶553

Sunny Thote

¶554

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶555

g. The Petitioners submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the provisions of S. 47 of the old Act observed that the benchmark disability of 40% is not a requirement to avail the benefits provided to the person with disability after entering into service.

¶556

SUMMARY OF THE ORAL SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT STATE AND THE Z.P.

¶557

Action of the State Government under challenge, is the initiation of a verification /scrutiny and assessment of Persons with Disabilities (PwD), working in the Government/ Semi-government/ Government aided institutions conducted by the State Government. It is necessary to look into the objects and reasons of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act), which came into effect on 19.04.2017. Object of the Act is to give effect to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. India is a signatory to the said Convention and has ratified the said Convention on 01.10.2007.

¶558

The Convention lays down the following principles for empowerment of persons with disabilities :-

¶559

58 of 147

¶560

Sunny Thote

¶561

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶562

(a) respect for inherent dignity, individual autonomy including the freedom to make one's own choices, and independence of persons;

¶563

(b) non-discrimination;

¶564

¶565

(d) respect for difference and acceptance of persons with disabilities as part of human diversity and humanity;

¶566

(e) equality of opportunity;

¶567

(f) accessibility;

¶568

(g) equality between men and women;

¶569

(h) respect for the evolving capacities of children with disabilities and respect for the right of children with disabilities to preserve their identities;

¶570

The said Act replaced the erstwhile Persons with Disabilities (equal opportunities, protection of rights and full participation) Act,1995 with a more comprehensive and a rights based legislation. The said Act expanded the scope of Disabilities from 7 to 21 specified disabilities.

¶571

The verification/scrutiny exercise conducted by the State Government, was needed because the State Government has been receiving large complaints from various departments and

¶572

59 of 147

¶573

Sunny Thote

¶574

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶575

individuals that several employees in Government services are using bogus disability certificates/non genuine certificates/ temporary or below benchmark disabilities certificates/ UDID cards and working in the government establishments and are also obtaining benefits that are reserved exclusively for persons with benchmark disabilities.

¶576

It is the submission of the State that due to the number of complaints received by them, that they considered it necessary to undertake a systematic and uniform Re-verification of the disability certificates. A number of employees refused to appear for the medical check-up and approached this Court.

¶577

Chapter X of the Act, deals exclusively with the process of certification for individuals who wish to obtain a disability certificate. Sections 56 and 57 of the Act lay down guidelines for assessment and designation of certifying authorities. These provisions govern the process by which a person with disability applies for certification.

¶578

It is the contention of the Petitioners that if the State Government was dissatisfied with the disability certificate issued to

¶579

60 of 147

¶580

Sunny Thote

¶581

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶582

them by a certifying authority, it should have followed the appellate procedure prescribed u/s 59 of the Act. To answer this, the State submits that the present verification exercise, is not an appeal against the certification decision, but it is a policy driven verification process undertaken by the Government in their capacity as the employer to ensure compliance with the statutory eligibility requirements for reservation and service benefits.

¶583

An individual who wishes to avail the benefits under the Act must necessarily undergo the certification process under Chapter X and obtain a UDID card through “Swavalamban portal”. Rule 18 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 assigns colour bands to each category of disability.

¶584

Section 2(s) defines a person with disability, while Section 2(r) defines “persons with benchmark disability” as one having at least 40% disability. Only persons with benchmark disabilities are entitled to job reservations and other benefits. Many Petitioners fear that if they undergo a verification/scrutiny/assessment, their disability percentage may be found to be less than 40%. If such a finding emerges, their

¶585

61 of 147

¶586

Sunny Thote

¶587

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶588

continued enjoyment of service/job benefits would amount to fraudulent availing of such benefits and would attract penal consequences u/s 91 of the Act.

¶589

The State acted fully in accordance with the provisions of RPwD Act, 2016 and is entitled to invoke Section 91 of the Act which reads as under :

¶590

‘91. Punishment for fraudulently availing any benefit meant for persons with benchmark disabilities. —Whoever, fraudulently avails or attempts to avail any benefit meant for persons with benchmark disabilities, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees or with both.’

¶591

Before the Petitioners obtained interim stays from the Court, the verification process had already uncovered around 350 government employees with bogus disability claims. The Government Resolution dated 09.10.2025, mandates UDID card for PwD in all government, semi-government and grant-in-aid institutions and further allows verification/scrutiny of all government employees claiming disability benefits. If any employee is found to have not submitted UDID card or has disability below 40% or is using a fake or incorrect certificate, action u/s 91 is permissible. The GR made it compulsory for every department to

¶592

62 of 147

¶593

Sunny Thote

¶594

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶595

complete the verification process and submit its report within 3 months.

¶596

The Central Government, on 03.03.2023, made UDID card compulsory from 01.04.2023. On 27.06.2024, the State Government provided one year extension to the persons using old disability certificates to obtain UDID card and this deadline ended on 26.06.2025. The State submits that they cannot allow a person to continue in service (who entered through reservation on a post with a benchmark disability), when the disability fell below the benchmark after the medical re-verification.

¶597

The Supreme Court in Vikash Kumar vs. UPSC

¶598

observed that the nature of impairment u/s 2(s) requires that the impairment should be long term. The State submits that by this logic, if the percentage of any individual is coming down below the benchmark, it clearly indicates that the disability was never long term.

¶599

After perusal of the petitions, the State submits that, more than 90% of the Petitioners in Nashik district fall in the ‘hearing impairment’ category and more than 90% in Satara district

¶600

63 of 147

¶601

Sunny Thote

¶602

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶603

fall under ‘locomotor’ disability. Majority of the Petitioners acquired the above mentioned disabilities only after coming into service. Over 65% of the Petitioners fall in the 40 – 50 % disability range and not a single Petitioner has disability over 80%. The State submits that it is a settled principle of service law, as is held in the caste scrutiny matters ( Chairman and MD, FCI v/s Jagdish Balaram Bahira, 2017 (8) SCC 670 ) that when a certificate is found to be bogus or obtained through fraudulent means, all benefits should be taken away. As such, the appointment must be terminated. The same principle should apply here as well.

¶604

The State has cited the Judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh And Others V/s. Ravindra Kumar Sharma And Others, (2016) 4 SCC 791. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that when a fraud is established on a large scale, the State Government has full authority to order re-verification. This action did not warrant judicial interference. Mere physical verification is insufficient to detect all disabilities. A proper medical verification is necessary.

¶605

The State has already found cases wherein the person has a valid UDID card, yet when seen in person, they appear to have

¶606

64 of 147

¶607

Sunny Thote

¶608

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶609

no disability at all. Cases of 0% disability were also found upon medical re-assessment. For the above stated reasons, a fresh medical reassessment is necessary to determine whether the disability is real, long term and above the benchmark.

¶610

Submissions on behalf of Respondent Nos.2, 4 and 5 (Writ Petition No.2729 of 2026)

¶611

The Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the Government Resolution dated 16.06.2025 issued by Respondent No.1, State Government and the Circular dated 03.02.2026, along with the communication dated 10.02.2026.

¶612

The main contention of the Petitioner is that he should

¶613

not be directed to undergo medical examination to verify his disability. On 26.02.2026, this Court directed the Petitioner to undergo medical examination. Despite the said order, the Petitioner avoided the medical examination. On 09.03.2026, this Court once again directed the Petitioner to undergo medical examination. It is only pursuant to the said order that the Petitioner subjected himself to medical examination on 10.03.2026.

¶614

65 of 147

¶615

Sunny Thote

¶616

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶617

The Petitioner was totally non-cooperative during the Pure Tone Audiometry (PTA) Test. The Petitioner was then subjected to BERA Test which is an objective test and considered as a ‘Golden Standard Objective Test’. As per the BERA report dated 10.03.2026, the disability percentage of the Petitioner is 0.16%.

¶618

The Petitioner has taken all service benefits on the basis of his disability certificate, right from his appointment in 2015, until date. He has thereby deprived other eligible disabled candidates from availing the benefits of their genuine disability. The Petitioner has thereby infringed upon the fundamental right of other deserving disabled individuals by playing a fraud with the Respondent Corporation and fabricating the disability report before this Court.

¶619

Submissions on behalf of Respondent Nos.6 and 7 (In Writ Petition (ST.) No. 40880 of 2025)

¶620

The Respondent ZP has issued Show Cause Notices

¶621

dated 11.12.2025, based on the adverse findings of the District Medical Board. The Petitioners have approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedies available under the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Service (Appeal and Discipline) Rules, 1964.

¶622

66 of 147

¶623

Sunny Thote

¶624

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶625

The Petitioners were employed with the Pune ZP as primary teachers. They sought benefits during the 2025-2026 transfer process under “Special Category Part-1” (Disabled Teachers) as per the GR dated 18.06.2024. These benefits allow teachers with certified disabilities of 40% or more, to opt for schools with better transport facilities or to remain in their current posts i.e. to obtain administrative benefits (favourable transfers).

¶626

The Respondents initiated a re-verification process to ensure that the benefits are not misappropriated. Clause 5.10.5 of the GR dated 18.06.2024 mandates disciplinary action against any teacher who furnishes wrong information to obtain benefits. In order to maintain integrity in service, the Respondents initiated a reverification process under Rule 3 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Service (Conduct) Rules, 1967. The Respondents contend that the authority can order a re-examination by a District Civil Surgeon, in view of the GR dated 16.06.2025.

¶627

Under Rule 8 of the Maharashtra State Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2024, the authorities have the specific power to refer “suspicious” cases for re-assessment. The

¶628

67 of 147

¶629

Sunny Thote

¶630

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶631

Government Circular dated 16.06.2025, is a valid administrative guideline aimed at preventing fraud in the issuance of medical and disability certificates.

¶632

Pursuant to the letter dated 13.08.2025 issued by the Education Officer (Primary), Pune Zilla Parishad to the Divisional Deputy Director, Health Services, Pune, the Block EO of the respective Panchayat Samiti communicated with the schools situated in his jurisdiction and directed the teachers to appear before the District Medical Board at District Hospital, Aundh, Pune. Upon their examination, it was revealed that the disability percentages of the Petitioners were either below the required 40% threshold or significantly lower than what was claimed in their initial private certificates. A total of 178 disabled primary teachers were examined by the Medical Board and 46 disabled teachers out of them were found to be able-bodies and their disability was less than 40%.

¶633

The Respondents state that the action of re-assessment is fully supported by the Maharashtra State Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2024. Rule 8(2) of the said Rules provides that any establishment having reason to believe that a person holding a

¶634

68 of 147

¶635

Sunny Thote

¶636

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶637

disability certificate is ‘suspicious’, may file an appeal before the designated appellate authority. Under Rule 8(3), the Appellate Authority is empowered to refer the person to a medical expert or carry out a medical examination for the re-assessment of their disability.

¶638

Based on the medical findings, the Respondent authorities issued show cause notice dated 11.12.2025, thereby recording that the Petitioners had committed misconduct under Clause (3) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Service (Conduct) Rules, 1967. Findings of an expert Medical Board are not subject to judicial review unless malice is proven.

¶639

The 2016 Act provides protection to the disabled persons. However, it does not grant immunity to those who may have obtained certificates through misrepresentation or whose medical condition does not match the certified percentage upon objective re-evaluation.

¶640

The Government Resolution dated 16.06.2025 is under

¶641

challenge. It provides guidelines for reassessing disabilities and it is

¶642

69 of 147

¶643

Sunny Thote

¶644

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶645

the case of the Respondent that the State Government is fully empowered to issue such administrative instructions to prevent misuse of benefits meant for disabled persons. Moreover, every public employer has the inherent right to verify the authenticity of documents of their employees.

¶646

It is, therefore, canvassed by the State and the ZP, in light of the above facts, that the impugned Government Resolution dated 16.06.2025 and the show-cause notice dated 11.12.2025, are not arbitrary. These circulars do not override the 2016 Act, but rather, give effect to the reasons and object of the said Act.

¶647

Many of the identically placed aggrieved employees started rushing to the High Court for seeking protection and quashing of the orders directing their re-examination. One such group of cases viz. Writ Petition No.1519 of 2023, along with group of Petitions (Hanuman Yashwant Sarvade & Ors. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.), was considered by the Division Bench of this Court at Aurangabad. By Order dated 24.02.2023, the Petitions were disposed off by recording the submissions of the parties in Paragraph Nos.1 to 3 and certain directions were issued by this

¶648

70 of 147

¶649

Sunny Thote

¶650

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶651

Court in Paragraph Nos.4 to 7. For clarity, the said order is

¶652

reproduced hereunder :

¶653

‘4. Considering that, most of these petitioners had earlier acquired certificates from the Medical Board or a Committee of the Doctors, and since the Committee headed by the Dean of the Ambajogai Medical College has submitted a report, indicating much lower disability percentage and in some cases even 0% disability, that these petitioners are agreeable to abide by the Government Resolution dated 14/09/2018, and are willing to be examined by the Medical Committee of the J.J. Hospital at Mumbai. Each of them states that the Zilla Parishad may issue them a covering letter and refer them to the J. J. Hospital on particular dates and they are willing to be examined by the Appellate Medical Board of the J.J. Hospital, Mumbai, comprising of the Dean, the Medical Superintendent and a Subject Expert, who is a Senior Professor.

¶654

In view of the above, the learned Advocate for the Zilla Parishad submits that, the Zilla Parishad would issue a letter addressing the Dean of the J. J. Hospital, Mumbai, along with a copy of this order, and thereafter, issue letters to the individual petitioners and the similarly placed other teachers, to attend the medical examination by the Appellate Medical Board at the J. J. Hospital on particular dates and time.

¶655

In view of the above statements recorded, these petitions are disposed off. The impugned suspension orders stand set aside. It is made clear that, after the Appellate Medical Board of the J. J. Hospital, Mumbai, tenders it's report in a sealed cover, addressed to the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, and that if any teacher is found to have suffered lesser or no disability

¶656

71 of 147

¶657

Sunny Thote

¶658

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶659

amounting to a fraud, the Zilla Parishad will be at liberty to initiate appropriate disciplinary action. The petitioners are agreeable.

¶660

Pursuant to this order, if any of these petitioners/candidates as like the petitioners, desire to confess and tender an apology to the Zilla Parishad and seek pardon, they are at liberty to do so within 15 days from today and in such cases, the lapse on their part may be condoned with a strict warning by the Zilla Parishad, with a rider that, they will never indulge in any such act in future. Insofar as those teachers, who have secured the job on the basis of their disability certificates, the Zilla Parishad is at liberty to refer them also, to the Appellate Board of the J. J. Hospital, as directed above.’

¶661

All the learned Advocates for the Petitioners contend

¶662

that there are several circumstances in which these Petitioners and identically placed thousands of employees, have acquired medical certificates obtained from Authorized Government Medical Facilities. Based on such medical certificates, such Persons with Disabilities (hereinafter referred to as ‘PwD’ ) have obtained Unique Disability ID cards (hereinafter referred as ‘UDID’ ). Such Cards have been issued by those medical facilities who have been authorized to examine the medical certificates of the PwD and thereafter, the UDID card has been issued.

¶663

72 of 147

¶664

Sunny Thote

¶665

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶666

Thousands of PwDs who are in employment, have derived benefits available to the PwD under various schemes of the State Government. Some have entered employment as PwD. These PwDs derived benefits available to such categories under various schemes of the State Government. Their eligibility for such scheme would fall under the following categories :-

¶667

(a) Persons who have congenital defects/have physical disabilities prior to their entry in service and have secured employment on the basis of such disability.

¶668

(b) Candidates who entered service as normal/physically fit person, who developed disabilities while in service.

¶669

(c) Candidates who were physically fit while entering service, met with accidents or suffered grave illness and developed disabilities.

¶670

OUR ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

¶671

The learned Advocates for the Petitioners have

¶672

canvassed that each of these candidates have been subjected to medical examination and after the Medical Board or Panel of Doctors certified their disabilities, that they approached the

¶673

73 of 147

¶674

Sunny Thote

¶675

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶676

appropriate authority for obtaining the UDID cards. It is contended that such categories of PwDs have been receiving the benefits under various schemes for decades. Each one has genuine Medical Certificates and UDID cards. With passage of 10 or 20 or more years, it would be unfair to suspect such PwDs and subject them to fresh medical examination only because the concerned State Government Department desires to carry out the re-verification and medical re-examination, purely out of suspicion.

¶677

The Petitioners have relied upon the following Judgments/Orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts :

¶678

a. Dhammadip Bhaurao Mankar V/s. Union of India & Ors., (2012) 1 MhLJ 785.

¶679

b. Kunal Singh V/s. Union of India, (2003) AIR (SCW) 1013.

¶680

c. Order passed by the Aurangabad Bench in Writ Petition No.4756 of 2023, dated 03.05.2023 (Jandeo Navnath Mutkule V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.).

¶681

74 of 147

¶682

Sunny Thote

¶683

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶684

The learned Additional G.P. along with the AGPs have contended that various departments of the State Government noticed large number of bogus cases with seriously doubtful certificates on the basis of which UDID cards were procured. Based on such documents, several candidates have secured employment. Many in-service candidates suddenly developed physical infirmities. Such candidates started acquiring service benefits available to PwDs. Day by day, the list of in-service candidates, who started contracting physical infirmities in order to fit into various schemes floated by the State Government for PwDs, started growing. The most sought after physical infirmity is ‘hearing impairment’. An example of the Nashik District and Satara District is cited. In Nashik District, 80% of the Petitioners have ‘hearing impairment’ certificates. From the Satara District, around 80% of the employees fall under ‘locomotor disability’. The disability is about 80%. In Nashik District, the extent of the hearing impairment disability is about 65%.

¶685

The Additional G.P./AGPs point out even from the charts tendered by various Advocates which are on record, which indicate ‘hearing impairment’ as being the most common/soughtafter (favourite) disability. More than 90% of such PwDs, have

¶686

75 of 147

¶687

Sunny Thote

¶688

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶689

acquired the disability after recruitment, only after the State Govt. introduced special benefits for PwDs.

¶690

Our attention is drawn to a chart (8 pages in Marathi) tendered on behalf of the State, which is enclosed and marked as Annexure ‘X’, to this judgment. The learned Additional G.P. has canvassed that more than 80% of the PwDs who were medically examined in the recently conducted medical re-examination, are noticed to have 0% disability or their disability which was earlier shown to be in between 40% to 80%, has conspicuously fallen in between 6% to 20%. Several PwDs who have UDID cards or medical certificates indicating bench mark disabilities or high percent of disabilities, are now found to have 0% disability. In the medical re-examinations conducted in the past around six months, hundreds of examined candidates are found to have 0% disability or in-between 6% to 20%.

¶691

The Respondents contend that, a lot of hue and cry is raised by these Petitioners/PwDs about the scientific methods of medical examination only because they actually did not have the disabilities and yet had succeeded in fraudulently obtaining the

¶692

76 of 147

¶693

Sunny Thote

¶694

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶695

medical certificates or the UDID cards. Such cards and certificates may appear to be genuine. However, the percentage of disability mentioned in such certificates or UDID cards, have been manipulated. It is, therefore, submitted that mere verification of UDID cards or their medical certificates, would not be an enough exercise to locate the truth and unearth a disability scam in service.

¶696

It is further canvassed that Section 91 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, clearly provides that if any person has fraudulently acquired the benefits available to PwD, he/she could be subjected to serious action. Such fraudulent acts can be dealt with under Section 91. This proves that the State justifiably found it necessary to embark upon the exercise of re-medical examination, in the larger interest of the society. Employment and service benefits available to genuine candidates, would be usurped by bogus candidates, if the State turns a blind eye to this scam.

¶697

We are of the view that, the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India and others Vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and others (supra), though in the context of a bogus caste or tribe

¶698

77 of 147

¶699

Sunny Thote

¶700

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶701

certificate, would be squarely applicable to such bogus cases and all benefits being derived by the bogus PwDs, need to be taken away. If a laudable scheme of the State in the interest of the genuine PwDs, is misused by undeserving candidates pretending to be PwDs, the entire scheme would be a waste and the genuine candidates would be deprived of the benefits of the scheme, which would have been, otherwise available to them. It is clearly appears on the basis of the record that the verification exercise has become necessary only due to several bogus PwDs having been noticed. More the reexaminations are conducted, more is the number of bogus candidates.

¶702

It is submitted by the State that persons with bench mark disabilities [a PwD with not less than 40% of a specified disability, as defined under Section 2(r) and PwD with long term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairment as defined under Section 2(s)], are also turning out to be such PwD who either do not have any disability or the percentage of the disability has fallen to in between 6% to 20%.

¶703

We feel that, a general argument that there is no reason to conduct a re-examination after 10 to 20 years, sounds good. But,

¶704

78 of 147

¶705

Sunny Thote

¶706

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶707

when such frauds are noticed in most of the cases post reverification, it becomes glaring that there surely is a serious problem of bogus PwDs, who have taken employment on the basis of exaggerated percentages of disabilities or have entered employment as able bodied persons (hereinafter referred to as ‘ABP’ ) and then acquired disabilities, the most common being ‘hearing impairment’. The State Government has noticed this to be deep rooted, in practically every district in the State of Maharashtra. With lakhs of employees engaged in Government/Semi-Government/Local Authorities/State Instrumentalities, it is most difficult to pinpoint a particular case of fraud, without a medical re-examination.

¶708

It is contended by the State that the PwDs with permanent or long term disability or bench mark disabilities defined under Section 2(s) and Section 2(r), respectively, have no reason to fear a medical re-examination if they factually are suffering the disability as mentioned in their medical certificates/UDID cards. It is only those PwDs who have fraudulently acquired medical certificates and consequentially the UDID cards, based on exaggerated or false percentages of impairment, who are scared of being exposed. It is these PwDs who have approached the High

¶709

79 of 147

¶710

Sunny Thote

¶711

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶712

Court in order to block the medical re-examination. Based on the Judgments and Orders cited, especially the Judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh And Others V/s. Ravindra Kumar Sharma And Others, (2016) 4 SCC 791 and the Rajasthan High Court Judgment in Ram Prakash Kharlwa V/s. State of Rajasthan (supra), it is canvassed that all these Petitions filed by these Petitioners deserve to be dismissed.

¶713

It is further pointed out that the Rajasthan High Court has considered a long list of Judgments and has based its conclusions on the Judgments delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including in Ravindra Kumar Sharma & Ors (Supra). It has concluded in Paragraph No.56 to 62, as under :

¶714

‘56. The issue remains some of the petitioners, already in Government service or who have completed their probation and confirmed, whether in such circumstances, a full-fledged inquiry under the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958, is required before taking any action. The judgments referred herein-above, including the judgment in the case of Amrit Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand (supra) , clearly held that when somebody secures a job without possessing the proper qualification, it is not necessary to hold a full-fledged inquiry. Rule 19 of the CCA Rules specifically provides for dispensing with an inquiry where it is not possible.

¶715

In the present case, when somebody obtains a job on the basis of a fake or false certificate claiming to be a person with disabilities, then there is no protection for such

¶716

80 of 147

¶717

Sunny Thote

¶718

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶719

individual(s) under the law. The State Government or the appointing authority may terminate services of such person after recording reasons in detail, and nobody has a right to continue on a post which is not meant for him/her. Thus, there is no protection of law for a person who has secured a job on the basis of a fake or false certificate, and the duty to take action lies upon the State Government, or the department concerned.

¶720

Again, there is a question whether criminal action is required to be taken or not, is within the domain of the department concerned or the State Government. However, if somebody commits a crime, he is liable for criminal prosecution, and thus there is no protection for individual(s) who do not have a benchmark disability, but still procured a certificate to show a benchmark disability. The disability has to be assessed on the basis of the guidelines as issued by the Government of India under Sections 56 of the RPWD Act, and it is sufficient to draw a conclusion that certificate issued only in accordance with Chapter-X of RPWD Act are valid and legal for all purpose.

¶721

In view of discussions made hereinabove, the State Government is under a constitutional obligation in providing equal protection, as provided under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and bound to follow the doctrine of reasonable accommodation while considering the case of any individual who is declared as a person with disabilities under the RPWD Act, 2016. At the same time, the State Government is also duty-bound to prevent misuse of the provisions of the RPwD Act, 2016 by any individual, with aim to usurp the employment opportunities meant for persons with benchmark disabilities. If the State Government fails in its

¶722

81 of 147

¶723

Sunny Thote

¶724

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶725

constitutional obligation or omits to do any act in furtherance of the directions and duties as mandated under the RPWD Act, 2016, then they are liable for omissive discrimination.

¶726

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.

¶727

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.

¶728

Thus, the writ petitions are disposed of in following manner:-

¶729

(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.

¶730

82 of 147

¶731

Sunny Thote

¶732

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶733

(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.

¶734

(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.

¶735

(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.

¶736

(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.

¶737

(vi) After assessment or reassessment of in service candidate(s), if the respondent(s) find that the candidate 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.

¶738

(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

¶739

83 of 147

¶740

Sunny Thote

¶741

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶742

guidelines issued by the Government of India under Section 56 of the RPWD Act, 2016.

¶743

(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 reassessment 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.’

¶744

The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 was enacted to give effect to the Proclamation on the Full Participation and Equality of the People with Disabilities in the Asian and Pacific Region. The Act defines Persons with Disabilities as those having not less than forty % disability and identified seven categories of disabilities, namely, blindness, low vision, hearing impairment, locomotor disability, mental retardation, mental illness and leprosycured.

¶745

Over a period of time, the conceptual understanding of the rights of persons with disabilities has become clearer, and there has been a worldwide change in the approach to handling the issues concerning persons with disabilities. The United Nations adopted its

¶746

84 of 147

¶747

Sunny Thote

¶748

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶749

‘Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities’, setting out the principles to be followed by State parties to empower persons with disabilities. India signed the said Convention and subsequently ratified the same on the 1st day of October, 2007. The Convention came into effect on the 3rd day of May, 2008. Being a signatory to the Convention, India has an international obligation to comply with its provisions, which require an entirely new legislation.

¶750

In 2010, an Expert Committee constituted under the chairmanship of Dr. Sudha Kaul, Vice-Chairperson, Indian Institute of Cerebral Palsy, Kolkata, submitted its report in 2011, suggesting a Draft Bill relating to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The draft Bill was extensively debated at various levels involving State Governments, Union territories, and various stakeholders.

¶751

53. The salient features of the Rights of Persons with

¶752

Disabilities Bill, 2014, inter alia, are:

¶753

(i) Nineteen specified disabilities have been defined; (ii) The persons with disabilities enjoy various rights such as the right to equality, life with dignity, respect for his / her integrity, etc., equally with others;

¶754

85 of 147

¶755

Sunny Thote

¶756

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶757

(iii) Duties and responsibilities of the appropriate Government have been enumerated;

¶758

(iv) All educational institutions funded by the appropriate Government shall provide inclusive education to children with disabilities;

¶759

(v) A National Fund is proposed to provide financial support to persons with disabilities;

¶760

(vi) Stakeholders' participation in the policy-making through Central and State Advisory Boards;

¶761

(vii) An increase in the reservation in posts from the existing three % to five % in the vacancies for persons or class of persons with benchmark disabilities in every establishment and reservation of seats for students with benchmark disabilities in higher educational institutions;

¶762

(viii) Setting up of National Commission and State Commission to act as Grievance Redressal Mechanism, monitor implementation of the proposed legislation replacing the Chief Commissioner and State Commissioners for persons with disabilities, respectively;

¶763

86 of 147

¶764

Sunny Thote

¶765

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶766

(ix) Guidelines to be issued by the Central Government for issuance of certificates of specified disabilities;

¶767

(x) Penalties for offences committed against persons with disabilities; and

¶768

(xi) Court of Session to be designated as Special Court by the State Government in every district to try offences.

¶769

It is necessary to go into the objects and reasons of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the RPwD Act), which was enacted for the empowerment of Persons with Disabilities. The main objective of replacing the earlier Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, by the RPwD Act, 2016, was to fulfill India’s obligation under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), which India ratified in 2007.

¶770

87 of 147

¶771

Sunny Thote

¶772

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶773

The Primary Objects of the RPwD Act, 2016 is:-

¶774

(a) To bring Indian Law in conformity with the International Standard while giving effect to the UNCRPD.

¶775

(b) To replace the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, with a more comprehensive and rights-based legislation.

¶776

¶777

(d) To shift from a welfare-based to a rights-based approach, recognising PwDs as rights holders, not charity recipients.

¶778

(e) To ensure equal opportunities, protection of rights and full participation of PwDs in the mainstream society.

¶779

The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, was enacted by the Central Government, which came into effect on 19^th April 2017.

¶780

88 of 147

¶781

Sunny Thote

¶782

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶783

THE SCHEDULE

¶784

[See clause (zc) of section 2]

¶785

SPECIFIED DISABILITY

¶786

Physical disability.—

¶787

A. Locomotor disability (a person’s inability to execute distinctive activities associated with movement of self and objects resulting from affliction of the musculoskeletal or nervous system or both), including—

¶788

(a) “leprosy cured person” means a person who has been cured of leprosy but is suffering from-

¶789

(i) loss of sensation in hands or feet as well as loss of sensation and paresis in the eye and eyelid, but with no manifest deformity;

¶790

(ii) manifest deformity and paresis but having sufficient mobility in their hands and feet to enable them to engage in normal economic activity;

¶791

(iii) extreme physical deformity as well as advanced age, which prevents him/her from undertaking any gainful occupation, and the expression “leprosy cured” shall be construed accordingly;

¶792

(b) “cerebral palsy” means a Group of non-progressive neurological conditions affecting body movements and muscle coordination, caused by damage to one or more specific areas of the brain, usually occurring before, during or shortly after birth;

¶793

(c) “dwarfism” means a medical or genetic condition resulting in an adult height of 4 feet 10 inches (147 centimetres) or less;

¶794

89 of 147

¶795

Sunny Thote

¶796

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶797

(d) “Muscular dystrophy” means a group of hereditary genetic muscle disease that weakens the muscles that move the human body, and persons with multiple dystrophies have incorrect and missing information in their genes, which prevents them from making the proteins they need for healthy muscles. It is characterised by progressive skeletal muscle weakness, defects in muscle proteins, and the death of muscle cells and tissue.

¶798

(e) “acid attack victims” means a person disfigured due to violent assaults by the throwing of acid or a similar corrosive substance.

¶799

B. Visual impairment -

¶800

(a) “blindness” means a condition where a person has any of the following conditions, after best correction—

¶801

(i) total absence of sight; or

¶802

(ii) visual acuity less than 3/60 or less than 10/200 (Snellen) in the better eye with best possible correction; or

¶803

(iii) limitation of the field of vision subtending an angle of less than 10 degrees.

¶804

(b) “low-vision” means a condition where a person has any of the following conditions, namely:—

¶805

(i) visual acuity not exceeding 6/18 or less than 20/60, up to 3/60 or up to 10/200 (Snellen)

¶806

in the better eye with the best possible corrections; or

¶807

(ii) limitation of the field of vision subtending an angle of less than 40 degrees up to 10 degrees.

¶808

90 of 147

¶809

Sunny Thote

¶810

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶811

C. Hearing impairment -

¶812

(a) “ deaf ” means persons having 70 DB hearing loss in speech frequencies in both ears;

¶813

(b) “ hard of hearing ” means a person having 60 DB to 70 DB hearing loss in speech frequencies in both ears;

¶814

D. “speech and language disability” means a permanent disability arising out of conditions such as laryngectomy or aphasia affecting one or more components of speech and language due to organic or neurological causes.

¶815

Intellectual disability, a condition characterised by significant limitation both in intellectual functioning (reasoning, learning, problem solving) and in adaptive behaviour, which covers a range of everyday, social and practical skills, including—

¶816

(a) “specific learning disabilities” means a heterogeneous group of conditions wherein there is a deficit in processing language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself as a difficulty to comprehend, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations and includes such conditions as perceptual disabilities, dyslexia, dysgraphia, dyscalculia, dyspraxia and developmental aphasia;

¶817

(b) “autism spectrum disorder” means a neurodevelopmental condition typically appearing in the first three years of life that significantly affects a person’s ability to communicate, understand relationships and relate to others, and is frequently associated with unusual or stereotypical rituals or behaviours.

¶818

91 of 147

¶819

Sunny Thote

¶820

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶821

3. Mental behaviour -

¶822

“mental illness” means a substantial disorder of thinking, mood, perception, orientation or memory that grossly impairs judgment, behaviour, capacity to recognise reality or ability to meet the ordinary demands of life, but does not include retardation, which is a condition of arrested or incomplete development of the mind of a person, specially characterised by subnormality of intelligence.

¶823

4. Disability caused due to -

¶824

(a) chronic neurological conditions, such as—

¶825

(i) “multiple sclerosis” means an inflammatory, nervous system disease in which the myelin sheaths around the axons of nerve cells of the brain and spinal cord are damaged, leading to demyelination and affecting the ability of nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord to communicate with each other;

¶826

(ii) “Parkinson’s disease” means a progressive disease of the nervous system marked by tremor, muscular rigidity, and slow, imprecise movement, chiefly affecting middleaged and elderly people associated with degeneration of the basal ganglia of the brain and a deficiency of the neurotransmitter dopamine.

¶827

(b) Blood disorder—

¶828

(i) “haemophilia” means an inheritable disease, usually affecting only males but transmitted by women to their male children, characterised by loss or impairment of the normal clotting ability of blood so that a minor wound may result in fatal bleeding;

¶829

92 of 147

¶830

Sunny Thote

¶831

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶832

(ii) “thalassemia” means a group of inherited disorders characterised by reduced or absent amounts of haemoglobin.

¶833

(iii) “sickle cell disease” means a hemolytic disorder characterised by chronic anaemia, painful events, and various complications due to associated tissue and organ damage; “hemolytic” refers to the destruction of the cell membrane of red blood cells resulting in the release of haemoglobin.

¶834

Multiple Disabilities (more than one of the above specified disabilities), including deaf blindness, which means a condition in which a person may have a combination of hearing and visual impairments causing severe communication, developmental, and educational problems.

¶835

Any other category as may be notified by the Central Government.

¶836

56. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016

¶837

Section 2 :-

¶838

(r) “person with benchmark disability ” means a person with not less than forty per cent (40%) of a specified disability where specified disability has not been defined in measurable terms and includes a person with disability where specified disability has been defined in measurable terms, as certified by the certifying authority;

¶839

93 of 147

¶840

Sunny Thote

¶841

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶842

(s) “person with disability” means a person with long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairment which, in interaction with barriers, hinders his/her full and effective participation in society equally with others;

¶843

(zc) “specified disability” means the disabilities as specified in the Schedule;

¶844

Section 34. Reservation - (1) Every appropriate Government shall appoint in every Government establishment, not less than four per cent of the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength in each group of posts meant to be filled with persons with benchmark disabilities of which, one per cent each shall be reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities under clauses (a), (b) and (c) and one per cent for persons with benchmark disabilities under clauses (d) and (e), namely:—

¶845

(a) blindness and low vision;

¶846

(b) deaf and hard of hearing;

¶847

(c) locomotor disability, including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured, dwarfism, acid attack victims, and muscular dystrophy;

¶848

(d) autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability and mental illness;

¶849

(e) multiple disabilities from amongst persons under clauses (a) to (d), including deaf-blindness, in the posts identified for each disability:

¶850

Provided that the reservation in promotion shall be in accordance with such instructions as are issued by the appropriate Government from time to time:

¶851

94 of 147

¶852

Sunny Thote

¶853

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶854

Provided further that the appropriate Government, in consultation with the Chief Commissioner or the State Commissioner, as the case may be, may, having regard to the type of work carried out in any Government establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notifications, exempt any Government establishment from the provisions of this section.

¶855

(2) Where in any recruitment year any vacancy cannot be filled up due to non-availability of a suitable person with benchmark disability or for any other sufficient reasons, such vacancy shall be carried forward in the succeeding recruitment year and if in the succeeding recruitment year also suitable person with benchmark disability is not available, it may first be filled by interchange among the five categories and only when there is no person with disability available for the post in that year, the employer shall fill up the vacancy by appointment of a person, other than a person with disability:

¶856

Provided that if the nature of vacancies in an establishment is such that a given category of person cannot be employed, the vacancies may be interchanged among the five categories with the prior approval of the appropriate Government.

¶857

(3) The appropriate Government may, by notification, provide for such relaxation of the upper age limit for employment of persons with benchmark disability, as it thinks fit.

¶858

Review of Accessibility Standards. - The Central Government shall review from time to time the accessibility

¶859

95 of 147

¶860

Sunny Thote

¶861

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶862

standards notified based on the latest scientific knowledge and technology.

¶863

Section 56. Guidelines for assessment of specified disabilities .—The Central Government shall notify guidelines for the purpose of assessing the extent of specified disability in a person.

¶864

Section 91. Punishment for fraudulently availing any benefit meant for persons with benchmark disabilities. - Whoever fraudulently avails or attempts to avail any benefit meant for persons with benchmark disabilities, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with a fine which may extend to one lakh rupees or with both.

¶865

Section 91 of the Act clearly states that any person who fraudulently avails or attempts to avail any benefit meant for persons with benchmark disabilities, shall be punishable with imprisonment of up to two years or a fine of up to one lakh rupees or both. This penal provision reflects the conscious legislative intent of Parliament to deter abuse of disability-related benefits and to protect the statutory rights of genuine Persons with Disabilities, which can be achieved only if it is possible to identify Persons with Disabilities who are bogus/non-genuine. Hence, there is a need to verify and identify such bogus Persons with Disabilities who have fraudulently availed or attempted to avail benefits meant for the genuine PwD, and the verification seems to be necessary.

¶866

96 of 147

¶867

Sunny Thote

¶868

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶869

57. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017

¶870

Section 16 . Review of Accessibility Standards. - The Central Government shall review from time to time the accessibility standards notified based on the latest scientific knowledge and technology.

¶871

A much hue and cry has been raised by the Petitioners contending that the medical re-verification is purposeless and amounts to sheer harassment of the Petitioners and similarly situated employees. They are compelled to undergo the medical examination by traveling long distances, made to sit in long queues and entire exercise is becoming torturous. If they have valid certificates and UDID cards for decades, no purpose would be served in subjecting them to re-verification. Moreover, they are made to undergo ‘Brainstem Evoked Response Audiometry’ ( ‘BERA’ ). On the pretext of modern medical technics being utilized, the disability percentage of such employees is being lowered. Once such variation occurs in the tests results vis-a-vis the earlier results, allegations of fraud are leveled upon the Petitioners and similar employees, who are then suspended and subjected to disciplinary action. Even FIRs are

¶872

97 of 147

¶873

Sunny Thote

¶874

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶875

directed to be registered against them. Their salaries have been abruptly stopped, by highhanded actions.

¶876

The learned Counsel for the State submits that those employees who have acquired medical reports with exaggerated disability percentages, have become jittery and are fearful of the possibility of being exposed. It is submitted that Dr. Suman Kumar, Director of Ali Yavar Jung, National Institute of Speech and Hearing Disabilities, has addressed a communication dated 11.03.2026 containing his opinion (in view of his appearance before the Court on 10.03.2026 at 3:00 p.m.) to Shri. Kakade, the learned Additional G.P. who has relied upon the said opinion and has prayed that this Court should advert to the same.

¶877

We are of the view that since Dr. Suman Kumar is the Director of the National Institute, it would be advantageous to consider his opinion, hereunder :

¶878

Dr. Suman Kumar, Director, Ali Yavar Jung, National Institute of Speech and Hearing Disabilities. Ref. No. DIR/2026/5382 Date. 11.03.2026

¶879

Mr. P. P. Kakade Additional Government Pleader, (A.S.) Writ Cell, High Court, Mumbai

¶880

98 of 147

¶881

Sunny Thote

¶882

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶883

Ref. Writ Petition No. 834 of 2026 A/w other connected matters

¶884

Sir,

¶885

With reference to the above-captioned matter and my appearance before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay on 10.03.2026 at 03:00 p.m., the comments, as desired, are submitted below for your kind perusal and for taking further necessary action in the matter:

¶886

Definition of Hearing Impairment

¶887

Persons with	Loss of sixty decibels or
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995	more in the better year in the conversational range of frequencies.
The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,2016	Deaf means persons having 70dB loss in speech frequencies in both ears Hard of Hearing means persons having 60dB-70dB loss in speech frequencies in both ears

¶888

Comparison of the Assessment framework under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,2016

¶889

A comparative analysis of the disability assessment frameworks under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Assessment Guidelines, 2018, and the Revised RPwD Assessment Guidelines, 2024 indicates a progressive refinement in the methodology adopted for assessing hearing impairment in India.

¶890

99 of 147

¶891

Sunny Thote

¶892

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶893

Under the PwD Act, 1995, the assessment of hearing disability was based on a combination of pure tone audiometric thresholds and speech discrimination scores, with the pure tone average calculated using three frequencies, namely 500 Hz, 1000 Hz, and 2000 Hz. While this approach attempted to incorporate both auditory sensitivity and functional speech perception, it lacked uniformity due to variability in speech testing procedures across institutions.

¶894

The RPwD Assessment Guidelines, 2018, introduced a significant shift toward a more standardised and objective approach. The guidelines eliminated the use of speech discrimination scores and relied solely on pure tone audiometric thresholds for calculating hearing disability. Importantly, the guidelines expanded the frequency range used for calculating the pure tone average by including 4000 Hz, in addition to 500 Hz, 1000 Hz, and 2000 Hz. This change marked a scientifically sound advancement, as it captured high- frequency hearing loss, which may not be adequately reflected when assessment is restricted to lower frequencies alone.

¶895

The Revised RPWD Assessment Guidelines, 2024, retain the same fundamental calculation method introduced in 2018 but provide greater clarity in testing protocols, especially for paediatric assessment, and integrate the certification process with the Unique Disability ID (UDID) system . The guidelines also emphasise the use of objective audiological measures such as Auditory Brainstem Response (ABR), Auditory Steady-State Response (ASSR), and Otoacoustic Emissions (OAE) in cases where behavioural audiometry is not feasible.

¶896

From a clinical and scientific perspective, the revised assessment framework places greater emphasis on higher frequency hearing thresholds, particularly 4000 Hz, which is often the earliest

¶897

100 of 147

¶898

Sunny Thote

¶899

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶900

frequency affected in many types of sensorineural hearing loss, including noise- induced hearing loss, ototoxicity, and early presbycusis. The inclusion of this frequency, therefore, enhances the sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy of the disability assessment system, ensuring that individuals with highfrequency hearing impairment are more accurately identified.

¶901

It is further submitted that hearing loss, particularly sensorineural hearing loss, is typically irreversible and does not decrease with age; rather, it either remains stable or progressively increases depending on the duration and aetiology of onset. Therefore, the mere fact that an assessment was conducted under the earlier 1995 guidelines rather than the 2018 or 2024 guidelines cannot, by itself, be construed as diminishing the actual hearing disability of the individual.

¶902

On the contrary, the methodology introduced under the 2018 guidelines arguably operates in favour of persons with hearing impairment, as it incorporates the 4000 Hz frequency, which is frequently the first frequency to be affected in many auditory pathologies. Consequently, the inclusion of this frequency ensures a more comprehensive and realistic representation of the individual's audiological deficit, thereby preventing underestimation of disability.

¶903

Accordingly, the revised assessment framework of 2024 represents a scientifically robust, clinically appropriate, and legally sound system for evaluating hearing impairment. By incorporating higherfrequency thresholds and standardized protocols, the current methodology better reflects the true audiological profile of individuals with hearing impairment and effectively advances the statutory objective of protecting the rights, dignity, and entitlements of persons with disabilities under the RPwD Act, 2016.

¶904

101 of 147

¶905

Sunny Thote

¶906

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶907

Assessment of Hearing Disability as per RPwD Guidelines 2024

¶908

Air Conduction Threshold is to be measured using standard Pure Tone Audiometry by an Audiologist for both ears. The Audiologist must be under in Central Rehabilitation Register of Rehabilitation Council of India who has to renew his/her registration every seven years in order to practice the discipline.

¶909

In the case of an unreliable Air Conduction Threshold, additional tests are recommended, such as Immittance Testing, Speech Audiometry, or Auditory Brainstem Response Testing.

¶910

It is also pertinent to note that the Auditory Brainstem Response (ABR) is a non-invasive, objective electrophysiological assessment of auditory function, widely accepted in clinical audiology for estimating hearing thresholds. The test does not require active participation or behavioural responses from the individual and is therefore particularly useful in infants, young children, or individuals who are unable to provide reliable behavioural responses during conventional audiometric testing.

¶911

ABR measures the neural responses generated along the auditory pathway from the cochlea to the brainstem following acoustic stimulation, thereby enabling the estimation of auditory sensitivity in an objective manner. Numerous clinical studies have demonstrated that ABR- based threshold estimation shows a high level of diagnostic reliability, with sensitivity approaching approximately 95% in identifying hearing impairment.

¶912

Note on Reassessment of Hearing Disability Cases Referred from Various Districts of Maharashtra

¶913

102 of 147

¶914

Sunny Thote

¶915

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶916

The Education Officers (Primary) of Zilla Parishad, Nashik; Zilla Parishad, Beed; and other district authorities are referring their employees to the Institute for reassessment of hearing disability.

¶917

In order to facilitate the employees referred from different districts of Maharashtra, the Institute has allocated a specific day for hearing assessment exclusively for such reassessment cases.

¶918

The Institute conducts Pure Tone Audiometry (PTA), which is considered the gold standard test for hearing assessment. In cases where air conduction thresholds are found to be unreliable, additional objective and cross-check tests are conducted to ensure the accuracy of the results as per the Guidelines notified in the Gazette of India dated 14 March 2024:

¶919

Immittance Audiometry

¶920

Speech Audiometry

¶921

Auditory Brainstem Response (ABR)

¶922

Auditory Steady State Response (ASSR)

¶923

As per the assessments conducted so far, 18 out of 23 individuals assessed do not possess benchmark disability as defined under the relevant disability assessment guidelines .

¶924

During interaction with the individuals appearing for reassessment, several of them informally admitted that they do not have hearing loss but had obtained the UDID card primarily to avail certain service benefits, such as transfers. MAYINISHD(D)

¶925

Further, some individuals have: * Requested adjustments or favourable

¶926

consideration

¶927

Attempted to influence the assessment process

¶928

- Threatened the officials of the Institute

¶929

103 of 147

¶930

Sunny Thote

¶931

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶932

* Tried to exert undue pressure

¶933

It has also been observed that many individuals do not appear for the scheduled hearing assessment on the designated day. Some of them deliberately request appointments after prolonged intervals (3-4 months later).’

¶934

The above reproduced opinion of Dr. Suman Kumar could give us a glimpse of the various tests that are conducted in the Ali Yavar Jung, National Institute of Speech and Hearing Disabilities. However, Paragraph Nos.4 to 7 of his view reproduced above indicates that some of the employees subjected to examination, have admitted that they do not have hearing impairment. Some tried to influence or manipulate the authorities. Some tried to exert undue pressure and some even threatened the officials of the Institute. Some even tried to dodge the tests.

¶935

The record in all these cases reveals that before these cases were transferred to the Principal Seat from all the Benches of the Bombay High Court and were assigned to this Court under the administrative order of the Hon’ble The Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, different Benches had passed ad-interim orders. Finally, while considering the requests of these Petitioners to

¶936

104 of 147

¶937

Sunny Thote

¶938

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶939

grant some interim relief, we have granted interim protection with certain directions, which are as under :

¶940

(a) All the Petitioners and identically placed employees (who may not have preferred Writ Petitions), would subject themselves to the medical re-examination as per the schedule prescribed by the employer in coordination with the respective medical facility.

¶941

(b) Notwithstanding any variation in the medical examination results, the employers would not dispense with their services or initiate disciplinary action against any of such Petitioners, until further orders.

¶942

(c) In the event any such employee is suspended from employment, his/or suspension would stand stayed and he/she would continue to draw regular wages.

¶943

(d) No further order of suspension or a direction to register an FIR would be passed without the leave of the Court.

¶944

(e) No precipitative action or adverse order should be passed against the Employees, without the leave of the Court.

¶945

(f) Those Employees who would dodge or avoid the re-assessment tests, would be subjected to disciplinary action.

¶946

In the meanwhile, the State Government issued a Government Resolution dated 09.10.2025 bringing it to the notice of

¶947

one and all that the UDID card is made compulsory for recruitment in any Government/Semi-Government and grant-in-aid institutions, for persons applying under the disability quota. The Marathi version

¶948

105 of 147

¶949

Sunny Thote

¶950

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶951

as well as the english translation of the Government Resolution

¶952

dated 09.10.2025, is reproduced hereunder :

¶953

‘राज्यशासनामार्फ�त वि�वि�ध शासकीय / विनमशासकीय � इतर स�� प्राधिधकरणे / संस्था इत्यादी मध्ये पदभरतीसाठी अर्ज� घेताना विदव्यांग व्यक्तींसाठी आरधि+त असलेल्या र्जागांसाठी संबंधिधत विदव्यांग व्यक्तींच्या �ैधि1क ओळखपत्राचा (UDID) क्रमांक नोंदवि�णे तसेच प्रमाणपत्राची सा+ांविकत प्रत र्जोडणे अविन�ाय� करण्यात येत आहे.

¶954

२. स�� मंत्रालयीन वि�भाग तसेच त्यांच्या प्रशासकीय विनयंत्रणाखालील स�� आस्थापना / वि�भाग प्रमुख / काया�लय प्रमुख तसेच स्�ायत्त संस्था यांना त्यांच्या आस्थापने�र विदव्यांग आर+णांतग�त से�ेत असलेल्या अधिधकारी/कम�चाऱ्यांबाबत पुढीलप्रमाणे कार�ाई करण्याच्या सूचना देण्यात येत आहेत.

¶955

i. र ्ज े व ि दव ् यांग अध ि धकारी / कम�चारी व ि दव ् यांग आर+णांतग�त व ि नयुक ्त ी, पदोन ्न ती � अन ् य शासकीय योर ्ज नांचा आण ि ण स�लती ं चा लाभ घेत आहेत, अशा स�� व ि दव ् यांग अध ि धकारी/ कम�चारी यांनी व ि दव ् यांगत ् � प ्र माणपत ्र / �ैध ि 1क ओळखपत ्र (UDID) सादर कले आहे क े े िं क�ा नाही याची तपासणी कर ु न त ् यांच ् या व ि दव ् यांगत ् �ाची पडताळणी करण ् यात या�ी,

¶956

अ) ज्या विदव्यांग अधिधकारी/ कम�चारी यांनी विदव्यांगत्� प्रमाणपत्र / �ैधि1क ओळखपत्र (UDID) सादर केले नाही,

¶957

ब) पडताळणीअंती ज्यांचे विदव्यांगत्�ाची टक्के�ारी ला+णिणक विदव्यांगत्�ापे+ा (४०%) कमी आहे,

¶958

क) शासकीय से�ेत काय�रत असलेल्या अधिधकारी / कम�चाऱ्यांच्याकडे चुकीचे अथ�ा बोगस विदव्यांगत्� प्रमाणपत्र / �ैधि1क ओळखपत्र (UDID) आढळून आल्यास,

¶959

अशा स�� अध ि धकारी / कम�चाऱ ् यांव ि �र ु ध ् द व ि दव ् यांग व ् यक ्त ी हक ्क अध ि धव ि नयम २०१६ मधील कलम ९१ नुसार कार�ाई करा�ी. तसेच त ् यांच ् याव ि �र ु द ्ध ण ि शस ् तभंगव ि �षयक कार�ाई करा�ी. त ् याचप ्र माणे त ् यांनी घेतलेल ् या लाभांची �सुली करण ् यात या�ी.

¶960

ii. उक्त प्रमाणे काय � ाही केल्यानंतर सुद्धा प्रशासकीय वि�भाग / विनयुक्ती प्राधिधकारी / आस्थापना अधिधकारी हे एखाद्या

¶961

106 of 147

¶962

Sunny Thote

¶963

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶964

विदव्यांग अधिधकारी / कम�चाऱ्यांच्या विदव्यांगत्�ाबाबत साशंक असतील तर अशा विदव्यांग अधिधकारी / कम�चाऱ्यांचे विदव्यांगत्� तसेच विदव्यांगत्� प्रमाणपत्राची पडताळणी करण्याबाबतचे स��स्�ी अधिधकार विनयुक्ती प्राधिधकाऱ्यास असतील.

¶965

३. स�� मंत्रालयीन प्रशासकीय वि�भागांच्या विनयंत्रणाखालील स�� आस्थापनां�रील विदव्यांग अधिधकारी / कम�चाऱ्यांचे विदव्यांगत्� आणिण विदव्यांगत्� प्रमाणपत्राची पडताळणी करुन त्याचा अह�ाल सोबतच्या "परिरणिशष्ट-अ" मधील वि�विहत नमुन्यात संबंधिधत वि�भागांनी ३ मविहन्यांत विदव्यांग कल्याण वि�भागास सादर करा�ा.

¶966

The G.R. dated 09^th October, 2025, lays down several important points as follows :-

¶967

i. UDID card is made compulsory for recruitment in all Government, Semi-Government and Grant-in-Aid institutions for persons applying under the disability quota.

¶968

ii. The GR allows verification and scrutiny of all Government employees claiming disability benefits.

¶969

iii. If any employee is found to have not submitted a UDID card, or has a disability below 40%, or is using a fake or incorrect certificate, then action will be taken under Section 91 of the Act and other relevant Acts and Rules

¶970

iv. Every department must complete the verification process and submit its report within three months.

¶971

v. Employees who were earlier using old disability certificates (not UDID cards), the Central Government, on 3^rd March 2023, made UDID cards compulsory from 1^st April 2023. Further, the State Government on 27^th June 2024 provided a one-year extension to obtain the new UDID card to avail the benefits of the Government, and this deadline ended on 26^th June 2025.

¶972

The main purpose of this GR is to remove bogus claimants from the disability quota so that genuine persons with disabilities are not deprived

¶973

107 of 147

¶974

Sunny Thote

¶975

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶976

of the benefits meant exclusively for them. The State wants to ensure that reservation and welfare schemes reach only those who really qualify, and that those who obtained false or doubtful certificates do not continue to take away opportunities from genuine disabled persons.)’

¶977

Prior to the above Government Resolution, the State had issued a G R dated 16.06.2025 with regard to the transfer policy in tune with the earlier G R dated 18.06.2024. It was mentioned in the said G R that various types of disability certificates are found to be bogus and false and, therefore, fresh medical examination was being ordered. The Marathi version of the Government Resolution dated 16.06.2025, is reproduced hereunder :

¶978

‘जिर्जल्हा परिरषद णिश+कांच्या जिर्जल्हांतग�त बदलीसाठीचे सुधारिरत धोरण �ाचा येथील विद.१८.६.२०२४ रोर्जीच्या शासन विनण�यान्�ये विनधिfत करण्यात आले आहे. सदर शासन विनण�यातील व्याख्या १.८ मध्ये वि�शेष सं�ग� णिश+क भाग-१ म्हणर्जे वि�वि�ध आर्जारांनी ग्रस्त णिश+क, व ि दव ् यांग ण ि श+क , विदव्यांग मुलांचे पालक परिरत्यक्ता/घटस्र्फोटीत मविहला णिश+क, ५३ �षk पूण� झालेले ण ि श+क , वि�ध�ा, कुमारिरका णिश+क, तसेच ज्या णिश+कांचे र्जोडीदार शासन विनण�यामध्ये नमुद गंभीर आर्जाराने ग्रस्त आहेत इत्यादी अशा णिश+कांचा समा�ेश करण्यात आला आहे.

¶979

२. तथाविप, वि�शेष सं�ग�-१ मधून वि�वि�ध आर्जारांची � विदव्यांगत्�ाची खोटी प्रमाणपत्रे सादर करुन बदलीमधून सूट विमळवि�णाऱ्या णिश+कांचे प्रमाण र्जास्त असल्याच्या तक्रारी प्राप्त झाल्या आहेत. तसेच काही न्यायालयीन प्रकरणांमध्ये जिर्जल्हांतग�त बदलीमध्ये वि�वि�ध सं�ग� विनमा�ण करुन अशा णिश+कांना बदलीपासून का �गळण्यात आले आहे, याबाबत खुलासा सादर करण्याबाबत शासनास आदेणिशत केले आहे.

¶980

108 of 147

¶981

Sunny Thote

¶982

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶983

३. त्यामुळे शासन विनण�य विद.१८.६.२०२४ मधील वि�शेष सं�ग� णिश+क भाग-१ च्या अनुषंगाने खालील सवि�स्तर सूचना स�� मुख्य काय�कारी अधिधकारी, जिर्जल्हा परिरषद यांच्या विनदश�नास आणण्यात येत आहेत,-

¶984

I) वि�शेष सं�ग�-१ मध्ये गणले र्जाण्यासाठी संबंधिधत णिश+काने सादर केलेले विदव्यांगत्�ाबाबतचे ऑनलाईन युडी-आयडी प्रमाणपत्राबाबत नेमण्यात आलेल्या वित्रसदस्यीय सविमतीस सदर णिश+काच्या विदव्यांगत्�ाबाबत काही साशंकता आढळून आल्यास, संबंधिधत णिश+काची जिर्जल्हा शल्य धिचकीत्सकांकडून तपासणी करुन घेण्यात या�ी.

¶985

II) तसेच विदव्यांगत्�ाबाबतचे देण्यात आलेले उपरोक्त प्रमाणपत्र हे विदव्यांगत्�ाचे लाभ अनुज्ञेय करण्याकरीता विदव्यांग कल्याण वि�भाग � सा��र्जविनक आरोग्य वि�भागाने �ेळो�ेळी विदलेल्या माग�दश�क सूचनांप्रमाणे विदलेले असले पाविहर्जे.

¶986

III) तसेच वि�वि�ध आर्जारांबाबत सादर करण्यात आलेल्या �ैद्यकीय प्रमाणपत्रामध्ये अविनयविमतता आढळून आल्यास, अशा णिश+कांची देखील जिर्जल्हा शल्य धिचकीत्सकांमार्फ�त र्फेरतपासणी करण्यात या�ी.

¶987

IV) वि�शेष सं�ग� - १ मधून बदलीसाठी अर्ज� सादर करणाऱ्या घटस्र्फोटीत/परिरत्यक्ता मविहला णिश+कांबाबत काही अविनयविमतता आढळून आल्यास संबंधिधत घटस्र्फोटीत णिशधि+केच्या मा. न्यायालयाने मंर्जूर केलेल्या घटस्र्फोटाच्या प्रमाणपत्राची प्रमाणिणत प्रत, परिरत्यक्ता णिशधि+केने ती पतीबरोबर राहत नसल्याबाबत सादर केलेले स्�यंघोषणापत्र, त्यांच्या रविह�ासाचे दाखले, आधार काड�, णिशधापवित्रका इत्यादी�रुन पडताळणी करा�ी. तसेच आ�श्यकतेनुसार अशा मविहला णिशधि+कांच्या विन�ासी पत्त्या�र प्रत्य+ र्जाऊन शहाविनशा करा�ी.

¶988

109 of 147

¶989

Sunny Thote

¶990

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶991

V) विदव्यांग � �ैद्यकीय प्रमाणपत्रांमध्ये � घटस्र्फोटाच्या आदेशामध्ये तसेच परिरतक्त्या असल्याबाबतच्या स्�यंघोषणापत्रामध्ये काही अविनयविमतता केल्याचे आढळून आल्यास, अशा णिश+कां�र र्फौर्जदारी गुन्हे दाखल करण्यात या�ेत. तसेच संबंधिधत णिश+काचे विनलंबन करुन णिशस्तभंगवि�षयक काय � ाही करण्यात या�ी.

¶992

VI) अशा णिश+कांवि�रुध्द कार�ाई न झाल्याचे आढळून आल्यास, संबंधिधत र्जबाबदार अधिधकाऱ्यां�र र्जबाबदारी विनधिfत करण्यात येईल.’

¶993

It is apparent from the above Government Resolutions

¶994

that the State noticed several deficiencies and irregularities in the medical certificates and UDID cards which certified candidates as being eligible for benefits to the differently abled persons. There was a sudden surge of in-service candidates seeking benefits of the Government Resolution. It was ordered that those candidates whose medical certificates carry deficiencies or mistakes would be subjected to a re-examination.

¶995

We are of the view that those candidates whose medical certificates or the UDID card suffer from procedural deficiencies or are acquired by nefarious means, would amount to moral turpitude on their part. Acquiring bogus certificates or manipulating authorities to acquire a disability certificate or UDID card so as to

¶996

110 of 147

¶997

Sunny Thote

¶998

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶999

facilitate selection or become entitled to certain service PwD benefits, would amount to an immoral act. Moral turpitude is a conduct that is inherently base, vile, depraved, or contrary to accepted moral standards of the society. It implies something done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. The Supreme Court has described it as an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a person owes to fellow human beings or to society in general. If any person has fraudulently obtained a disability certificate, thereby securing public employment otherwise meant for genuine persons with disabilities, and enjoying statutory benefits funded by the public exchequer for years, would squarely fall within the definition of moral turpitude.

¶1000

Misconduct involving moral turpitude can justify dismissal or removal from service even for a first offence. It disentitles an employee from leniency in punishment. The gravity of the misconduct itself warrants the severest punishment. Courts have consistently held that offences such as misappropriation, fraud, fabrication of records, and bribery, fall squarely within the ambit of moral turpitude. Service length, family circumstances, or being on the verge of retirement, are not mitigating factors, when the

¶1001

111 of 147

¶1002

Sunny Thote

¶1003

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶1004

foundational act of acquiring an appointment is a result of playing a fraud.

¶1005

The Courts apply a two-fold test to determine whether an act constitutes moral turpitude. Was the act inherently wrong, not merely prohibited by law? Did it involve a fraud, dishonesty, or deliberate harm to another person or society? It is time and again held by various Courts that moral turpitude means everything done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. Applying the two- fold test, (a) fabrication of records to secure a public office is inherently wrong because it subverts the selection process and betrays public trust and (b) such fabrication causes direct and calculated harm to other eligible candidates who are thereby displaced. An employee guilty of moral turpitude cannot claim protection under service rules or equitable doctrines, and compassion has no place where the initial act itself was vile and calculated.

¶1006

The acts of persons who indulge in acquiring bogus or untruthful medical certificates, satisfy both these tests. The procurement of bogus disability certificates is not merely a

¶1007

112 of 147

¶1008

Sunny Thote

¶1009

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶1010

procedural violation, it is an inherently dishonest conduct directed at defrauding the State, depriving genuine persons with disabilities of their rightful entitlements, and enriching oneself through deliberate deception at the expense of a vulnerable class. These persons do not merely commit a procedural irregularity. They, (a) obtain certificates fraudulently by misrepresenting their actual medical condition; (b) use those certificates to secure Government posts meant for genuinely disabled persons, thereby depriving the rightful candidates of their entitlements; (c) avail a host of monetary and service benefits over an extended period, all funded from the tax payers contribution; and (d) when the State sought to verify and expose their fraud, they rush to Court to obstruct the process of locating the truth.

¶1011

In the Affidavit dated 08.09.2025 filed by Respondent No. 6, the reasons for prescribing the guidelines for assessing the disability and also the purpose for such assessment are set out (Page 211). It further appears that on the basis of the said Govt. Circular, the disability of many Petitioners was freshly assessed by the certifying authority (a three members committee). It further appears that the said Authority submitted an adverse report to the

¶1012

113 of 147

¶1013

Sunny Thote

¶1014

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶1015

Respondent Zilla Parishad and then, on the basis of the said adverse report, the impugned action was initiated by the Respondent Education Officer.

¶1016

It is canvassed by the Petitioners that the Respondent Education Officer (Primary), has totally and completely misread the whole issue and sought to initiate punitive action against the Petitioners on the sole ground of adverse reports submitted by the Certifying Authority (three members committee) of the specified disability of the Petitioners. It is alleged against the Petitioners that they have committed misconducts of allegedly misguiding the Zilla Parishad by furnishing incorrect information regarding the certificates of disabilities/ serious illness. The said punitive action is being initiated under the provisions of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964.

¶1017

It is canvassed on behalf of the Respondent State that numerous petitions have been filed before different Benches of the Hon'ble High Court challenging the State Government's initiative to verify, scrutinise, and assess Persons with Disabilities working in Government/Semi-Government /Government-aided institutions.

¶1018

114 of 147

¶1019

Sunny Thote

¶1020

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶1021

While some Benches have granted interim relief restraining the verification process, others have declined to interfere at the interim stage with the State’s power to undertake such verification. This has resulted in conflicting orders, leading to administrative confusion among the authorities responsible for conducting the verification and, in some cases, complete stagnation of the process. Because of the interim orders issued in favour of some of the Petitioners, the authorities have been unable to proceed, thereby hampering the implementation of the State’s policy decision to ensure that only genuine Persons with Disabilities receive statutory benefits, is the contention.

¶1022

The need for this verification exercise arose because the State Government has been receiving enormous complaints from various departments and individuals, indicating that several employees in Government service are using bogus disability certificates/non-genuine certificates/temporary or below benchmark disability certificates/UDID cards. Such Employees are working in Government establishments and are also obtaining benefits that are reserved exclusively for persons with benchmark disabilities.

¶1023

115 of 147

¶1024

Sunny Thote

¶1025

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶1026

As these complaints increased in volume and

¶1027

considering the seriousness, the State considered it essential to undertake a systematic and uniform re-verification of disability certificates, all over the State, without relying upon a select few complaints that may have been filed by disgruntled elements or busy bodies. Many individuals, during this process, provided their documents and appeared before the medical authorities for assessment. However, a significant number of persons refused to appear for the medical check-up and instead approached this Court seeking stay, thereby obstructing the State’s verification process.

¶1028

A striking pattern emerging from these Petitions is that,

¶1029

the individuals who questioned the State’s procedure, have themselves chosen to avoid the medical assessment and verification. Some have even refused. They are not going to the medical boards, nor are they cooperating with the verification mechanism. Instead, they allege non-adherence of the statutory procedure by the State.

¶1030

The Petitioners argue that if the State Government is dissatisfied with a disability certificate issued by a certifying authority, it must follow the statutory procedure prescribed under

¶1031

116 of 147

¶1032

Sunny Thote

¶1033

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶1034

Section 59 of the RPwD Act, 2016. This argument proceeds on a fundamental misunderstanding of Chapter X of the Act. Chapter X deals exclusively with the certification process for individuals seeking a disability certificate. Sections 56 and 57 lay down the guidelines for assessment and the designation of certifying authorities. These provisions govern the process by which a person with disability applies for certification.

¶1035

The State has canvassed that the present verification/scrutiny exercise is not an appeal against a certification decision. It is policy driven verification scrutiny, undertaken by the Employer/Government to ensure compliance with statutory eligibility requirements for reservation and service benefits. Any individual who wishes to avail benefits under the RPwD Act must necessarily undergo the certification process under Chapter X and obtain a UDID card (Central) through the ‘Swavlamban Portal’. The certificate clearly indicates whether the person has a benchmark disability, a disability below the benchmark, or a temporary disability.

¶1036

The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017, especially Rule 18, ensures standardised and uniform certification

¶1037

117 of 147

¶1038

Sunny Thote

¶1039

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶1040

across the country. The RPwD Act assigns colour bands to each category of disability. This statutory mechanism and its Rules constitute a complete code for certification. They do not curtail the State’s power to verify the authenticity or continuing validity of such certificates for service-related purposes.

¶1041

The purpose of the State Policy is to eliminate bogus/non-genuine disability certificates so that genuine persons with disabilities can receive benefits that rightfully accrue to them.

¶1042

Due to petitions filed by persons, who fear verification/scrutiny/assessment, the entire process has slowed down, resulting in significant prejudice to genuine Persons with Disabilities, who continue to be deprived of their rightful opportunities because fraudulent claimants occupy reserved posts. [Read Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India and others Vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira), (supra)]. The State desires to act in accordance with the RPwD Act, 2016 and seeks to invoke Section 91 of the Act, because many of the employees who are not genuinely disabled, have been taking benefits meant only for persons with benchmark disabilities.

¶1043

118 of 147

¶1044

Sunny Thote

¶1045

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶1046

The ZP has contended that the statutory provisions and guidelines issued by the Government as per various resolutions issued from time to time, cast a duty on the Zilla Parishad to ensure that the benefits reserved for Persons with Disabilities (PwD), are not misappropriated. Under Rule 8 of the Maharashtra State Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2024, the authorities have the specific power to refer ‘suspicious’ cases for re-assessment. The Government Circular dated 16^th June 2025, is a valid administrative guideline aimed at preventing fraud in the issuance of medical and disability certificates. It is within the State’s power to regulate the verification of claims for public service benefits to maintain the integrity of the administration

¶1047

The Respondents initiated a re-verification process to ensure that the special benefits and privileges intended for persons with genuine disabilities, are not misappropriated by those who may have manipulated their disabilities. Clause 5.10.5 of the GR dated 18^th June 2024, expressly mandates disciplinary action against any teacher who knowingly furnishes false information to seek employment or obtain benefits during their employment. To maintain absolute integrity in service, as required under Rule 3 of

¶1048

119 of 147

¶1049

Sunny Thote

¶1050

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶1051

the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Service (Conduct) Rules, 1967, a re- verification process was initiated.

¶1052

It is further canvassed that the Government Circular dated 16^th June, 2025 specifically provides that if doubt arises regarding a teacher’s disability certificate, the authority may order a re-examination by a District Civil Surgeon. The G.R. dated 16^th June, 2025 and Communication dated 11^th December, 2025 are not arbitrary. They are administrative measures designed to streamline the verification process following a surge in suspicious disability claims. These circulars do not override the RPWD Act, but rather support its spirit of ensuring fair distribution of benefits. The action taken by the Respondent Zilla Parishad is a legitimate exercise of administrative oversight, i.e. monitoring, supervision and control of administrative functions, procedures to ensure compliance with policies and legal standards. The Petitioners cannot claim a vested right to a benefit based on documentation that an expert Government Medical Board has found inconsistent with their actual physical status.

¶1053

According to the State, reassessment is necessary because simply verifying whether a UDID card exists or is available

¶1054

120 of 147

¶1055

Sunny Thote

¶1056

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶1057

on the ‘Swavalamban Portal’, does not reveal whether the disability mentioned on the card and its percentage is genuine or accurate. The portal can only confirm that a UDID card has been issued. It cannot tell whether the person actually had the disability (which may be temporary) at the time it was claimed, whether the disability still exists, or whether the percentage has now changed.

¶1058

It has been repeatedly observed that many individuals do have valid UDID cards, yet when seen in person, they appear to have no disability at all. This issue is especially common in cases of hearing impairment, certain neurological conditions, low vision, or certain locomotor disabilities, which are invisible and therefore easy to fake or exaggerate. That is why such a large number of Petitioners before this Court, fall in these categories, and that too in the range of 40% to 50% disability.

¶1059

The State has already identified several cases in which individuals used fraudulent methods to obtain disability certificates and UDID cards. The data already placed on record clearly shows that many such individuals, despite holding valid UDID cards, were found to have 0% disability upon medical reassessment conducted

¶1060

121 of 147

¶1061

Sunny Thote

¶1062

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶1063

recently. The Additional GP has placed on record, a ready reference chart of the details of the recently conducted medical reassessments. The said chart is annexed to this Judgment, as Annexure ‘X’. This is not speculation. If re-assessment had not been conducted, these individuals would have continued to claim benefits meant only for persons with benchmark disabilities, and no one would have ever known that they were not genuinely disabled.

¶1064

During the hearing, the Petitioners argued that their disability percentage might have got reduced only because the assessment guidelines have changed from the old ones to the new ones. However, when both sets of guidelines are compared, there is no difference between them. In fact, logically, if a disability is truly long term as defined in Section 2(s) of the Act, it should remain the same or increase with age. It cannot decrease. A drastic reduction in the disability percentage usually means either that the original disability was temporary or that the earlier certificate was obtained by adopting improper means.

¶1065

Reassessment is, therefore, the only reliable way to uncover fraudulent disability claims because it goes beyond

¶1066

122 of 147

¶1067

Sunny Thote

¶1068

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶1069

checking documents and directly examines the person’s current, real medical condition. Fraud in disability benefits usually happens at the certification stage when a person misrepresents impairment, exaggerates symptoms, or uses influence or false documentation, to obtain a certificate. A UDID card or certificate alone cannot determine whether the person was genuinely disabled at the time of issuance or is still disabled today.

¶1070

In State of U.P. Vs Ravindra Kumar Sharma & Others (Civil Appeal arising from SLP(C) NO.8880/2011) , the question involved was as to the right of the appellant to verify the disability certificates issued by the Medical Board under the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Rules, 1996. In paragraph nos. 10 and 11, it was held as under :

¶1071

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 the physical verification of the candidate by the authorities, and, if he does not suffer from a disability, the certified candidate can be subjected to a fresh medical test. The High Court has overlooked that, on mere physical verification, it may not be possible to ascertain various kinds of disabilities, such as eye impairments, ear impairments, etc. That can only be done

¶1072

123 of 147

¶1073

Sunny Thote

¶1074

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶1075

through a medical examination, particularly when the High Court itself has observed that, in cases of genuine suspicion and fraud, medical certification can be reopened. The respondents have not questioned directions issued in this regard. In fact, the process of re-verification was already over when the High Court issued the aforesaid directions.

¶1076

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.

¶1077

The Hon'ble Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Division Bench and restored the view of the Single Bench, holding that, when fraud is established on such a large scale, the State Government has full authority to order re-verification. Mere physical verification is insufficient to detect all disabilities (e.g., vision or hearing impairment) and a proper medical examination is necessary. The Division Bench erred in overlooking the fact that reverification had already been completed and that 21% of the certificates were found to be fraudulent. Before taking individual action against candidates, each person must be issued a show cause notice and should be given an opportunity to respond, and the entire process should be completed within four months. No equity can be

¶1078

124 of 147

¶1079

Sunny Thote

¶1080

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶1081

claimed by persons who obtain benefits through fraudulent acts or misrepresentation. Even solemn acts and official certificates are not sacrosanct, if obtained through fraud, is the view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶1082

90. The Rajasthan High Court, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition

¶1083

no. 15370/2025 and all similar connected Writ Petitions (supra), delivered a judgment and concluded in paragraph nos. 59 to 62 as under :-

¶1084

In view of discussions made herein-above, the State Government is under a constitutional obligation to provide equal protection, as provided under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and bound to follow the doctrine of reasonable accommodation while considering the case of any individual who is declared as a person with disabilities under the RPwD Act, 2016. At the same time, the State Government is also duty-bound to prevent misuse of the provisions of the RPwD Act, 2016, by any individual, with the aim to usurp the employment opportunities meant for persons with benchmark disabilities. If the State Government fails in its constitutional obligation or omits to do any act in furtherance of the directions and duties as mandated under the RPwD Act, 2016, then they are liable for discriminatory omission.

¶1085

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

¶1086

125 of 147

¶1087

Sunny Thote

¶1088

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶1089

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 that 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.

¶1090

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.

¶1091

Thus, the writ petitions are disposed of in the following manner:-

¶1092

(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 to a seat reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities, unless his/her benchmark disability is assessed as per ChapterX of the RPwD Act, 2016.

¶1093

(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. 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.

¶1094

(iii) Any certificate issued by any Medical Board or Medical Officer, not designated as a certifying

¶1095

126 of 147

¶1096

Sunny Thote

¶1097

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶1098

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.

¶1099

(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.

¶1100

(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 a person with high support needs.

¶1101

(vi) After assessment or reassessment of in-service candidate(s), if the respondent(s) find that the candidate does not have a benchmark disability as required under the Act of 2016, then they are free to take any action as discussed hereinabove.

¶1102

(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. Such an 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.

¶1103

(viii) The petitioner(s) are not entitled to any protection under the law. Still, any action against them shall be taken or initiated only after reassessment of their benchmark disability under the directions of the respondent(s),

¶1104

127 of 147

¶1105

Sunny Thote

¶1106

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶1107

following the procedure prescribed under Chapter X of the RPWD Act, 2016.

¶1108

Following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ravindra Kumar Sharma (supra) and the Rajasthan High Court, while expressing our complete agreement with the observations in paragraph 62 of Ram Prakash Kharlwa (supra), we find that the following principles can be culled out to be made applicable to the cases before us, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, while reiterating the directions set out in paragraph 62 of Ram Prakash Kharlwa (supra):

¶1109

a) Re-verification of disability certificates is permissible under the Maharashtra Rules of 2024. The State's direction for re-examination, for valid reasons, does not amount to a violation of Articles 14, 16 or 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶1110

b) There is no conclusive presumption in favour of a disability certificate once issued under the RPWD Act, 2016, so as to be binding against all entities, for all purposes and in perpetuity, unless the strict guidelines applicable while issuing the UDID cards, have been scrupulously followed and non-observance of a material/significant condition thereunder would render such card invalid.

¶1111

128 of 147

¶1112

Sunny Thote

¶1113

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶1114

c) A certificate issued by an authority, not designated under Section 57 of the RPwD Act, or contrary to the guidelines under Section 56, is invalid and non-est in the eyes of the law. No equities or benefits can be claimed in perpetuity on the basis of such a certificate.

¶1115

d) A person who secures Government employment by producing a fake or false disability certificate, has no protection under the law. Employment obtained through fraud is void ab initio and confers no protected right.

¶1116

e) The employer may terminate the services of such a person (covered by clause ‘d’ above), by issuing him/her a show cause notice for a hearing and conduct a departmental enquiry on the charge of having produced a forged or bogus or false certificate/UDID card. In the alternative, recourse to S.91 of the 2016 Act, is legally permissible.

¶1117

f) Criminal prosecution under Section 91 of the RPwD Act is available and within the domain of the concerned department, in view of clauses (d) and (e).

¶1118

129 of 147

¶1119

Sunny Thote

¶1120

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶1121

(also read, Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi, (2003) 8 SCC 319 and Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 7 SCC 605 .)

¶1122

g) The Rajasthan High Court, however, has carved out one significant protection to the Employees, which we approve as well. It held that, where a State Government, after a change of Government, pursues an employee to undergo reassessment multiple times, the employee does have a right to challenge such action. . However, in the present cases, in the back-drop of a first time policy driven uniform verification and distinguishing facts, such remedy will not be available to the present Employees.

¶1123

We are aware that we are dealing with peculiar facts and strange and unforeseen circumstances. It rarely so happens that after issuance of the medical certificates and the UDID cards, a large number of beneficiaries are noticed to have indulged in irregularities/fraud, which also stinks of the involvement of the medical faculty. Normally, there is no reason to suspect anybody who has such certificate or card. However, from 2023 onwards, the concerned department of the State has been grappling with growing

¶1124

130 of 147

¶1125

Sunny Thote

¶1126

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶1127

discoveries of exaggerated disability percentages. Pursuant to the Administrative Order passed by the Hon’ble The Chief Justice, all these matters from the Benches have been clubbed and placed before our Court. We have directed, as an interim measure, that all the Petitioners and similarly placed employees would subject themselves for the medical examination and we have restrained the concerned department for initiating precipitative action against any of these Petitioners/employees, until further orders.

¶1128

We are of the opinion that the impugned action of medical re-examination stands the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The action of the State authorities must stand the test of non-arbitrariness, which is not a formal requirement. It is inherently a substantive constitutional command. In Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others¹ , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that every State action must be supported by reason and must eschew arbitrariness, the ratio being that arbitrariness is the very antithesis of equality and fairness. This principle was crystallised in the case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India and Another² , when it was held that the

¶1129

1 (1991) 1 SCC 212

¶1130

2 (1978) 1 SCC 248

¶1131

131 of 147

¶1132

Sunny Thote

¶1133

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶1134

procedure established by law must be just, fair, and reasonable, and not arbitrary or oppressive. It is trite that statutory interpretation cannot be segregated from its consequences, particularly where those are shaped by the conduct of the State itself. In all these cases before us, we find that the State is conducting the medical reexamination, pan-Maharashtra and is not restricted to any particular area of region in the State. All PwD employees are uniformly subjected to the said test.

¶1135

The learned Senior Advocates Shri Bandiwadekar, Shri Pakale and Shri Kadam, along with may advocates have contended that, at several places, the State has not constituted any special medical board and several employees have been directed to undergo medical examination at the hands of either a Civil Surgeon or a team of doctors at the local places. The learned Addl GP submits that the State has issued a GR constituting Medical Boards even at the Taluka levels and no Employee has been subjected to a medical reexamination by any medical practitioner or Civil Surgeon.

¶1136

ORDER AND DIRECTIONS

¶1137

Having concluded, in the light of the submissions, cited Judgments/Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the

¶1138

132 of 147

¶1139

Sunny Thote

¶1140

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶1141

Rajasthan High Court that the State has the authority to carry out medical examination for re-assessment, in peculiar, specific and warranting circumstances, we deem it appropriate to approve such exercise undertaken by the State, as a one time measure, provided a special Medical Board is constituted for the purpose of the medical re-examination. In future cases (new cases) of appointments or inservice disability claims, after the date of this judgment, the authorities would be bound to follow the RPwD Act, 2016 and the 2017 Rules r/w the Maharashtra Rules, 2024.

¶1142

In view of the above, all the Writ Petitions are partly allowed and the impugned orders of suspension/stoppage of salaries/orders for registering FIRs/cancellation of Approvals or the Shalarth IDs/disciplinary orders/transfers, etc., issued during the continuance of the medical re-verification/re-assessment exercise, shall stand quashed and set aside, subject to the directions set out in Paragraph No.97 hereunder.

¶1143

Since the State claims to have constituted special medical boards, as per the GR dated 14.09.2018 and 09.01.2019 for such medical re-examination/re-verification/re-assessment of the

¶1144

133 of 147

¶1145

Sunny Thote

¶1146

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶1147

disabilities of all Employees, we deem it appropriate to regulate the remedial/consequential action, in our Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in order to avoid shockingly disproportionate disciplinary action by the Employer. For the said purpose, we are placing the Petitioners/employees (definition of Employees/PwD is mentioned in the NOTE below the table), who are directed to undergo fresh medical examination, into the following categories and we are recommending action to be initiated after the results of such medical tests, as under :

¶1148

	CATEGORIES	ACTION TO BE INITIATED
(a)	Employees who have superannuated or have opted for voluntary retirement, as on the date of this Judgment	None should be subjected to a medical re-examination/re- verification or a punitive action. They shall be entitled for all retirement benefits, if there is no other impediment.
(b)	Employees/PwDs, notwithstanding the length of service of any such candidate, found to have acquired bogus medical certificates and/or bogus UDID cards, after the medical re-assessment/re- verification exercise	they shall be issued with show-cause notices with 15 days notice period to tender their written say/statement. If their replies are found to be unsatisfactory, the Employer shall issue them a charge sheet and conduct a departmental enquiry and if the charges are proved, pass an order of compulsory retirement from service.
(c)	Employees/PwDs whose disability percentage has fallen below 40% upto	they would be deprived of PwD reservation service benefits made available on the basis of any

¶1149

134 of 147

¶1150

Sunny Thote

¶1151

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶1152

	11% (11-39%), after the medical re-verification/ re-assessment exercise	Government Resolution issued from time to time.
(d)	Employees/PwDs, whose disability percentage has fallen between 0% to 10%, after the medical re- verification/re- assessment exercise	they shall be issued with show-cause notices with liberty to file their written say/reply within 15 days. If their replies are found to be unsatisfactory, the Employer shall issue them a charge sheet and conduct a departmental enquiry and if the charges are proved, pass an order of compulsory retirement from service.

¶1153

Note :

¶1154

(i) All ‘ Employees ’ or ‘ PwDs ’ shall mean and include, PwDs (disability prior to joining service) who secured employment on posts reserved for the PwD, and those in-service Employees who have acquired the disability while being in service.

¶1155

(ii) All ‘ Employees ’ or ‘ PwDs ’ shall mean and include, the Petitioners in the Court, as well as those identically placed who have not approached the Court.

¶1156

(e) We direct that if there is any such case of examination by any entity other than a State constituted Medical Board, or if any employee has acquired an UDID card and such a card has been subjected to a re-verification exercise at the hands of a Civil Surgeon or a team of doctors, who do not constitute a Medical Board, the test results of such reexamination should be discarded and such Employee should be referred to a Medical Board constituted for reexamination, afresh along with the UDID card, if any.

¶1157

(f) None of the Employees/PwDs, shall refuse to undergo the medical re-examination/re-verification/re-assessment.

¶1158

135 of 147

¶1159

Sunny Thote

¶1160

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶1161

(g) If any such Employee/PwD refuses the examination on the first occasion, he/she will be granted a second chance within 21 days. If he/she declines even on the second occasion by putting forth any reason, it shall be deemed that he/she desires to avoid the examination and such Employee/PwD shall then be placed under suspension until he/she undergoes the examination. During such suspension, he/she shall be entitled for only 50% basic salary as suspension allowance until the suspension lasts. If he/she is adamant and does not undergo the medical re-examination and prefers to continue under suspension till superannuation, he/she shall be entitled for only 50% of all retirement dues/pension/gratuity, etc..

¶1162

(h) Such medical re-examination/re-verification/reassessment exercise, which has already commenced a few months ago, shall be completed by the State Government, within a further period of 120 days.

¶1163

(i) If any Employee/PwD, falling in the afore stated category (b) to (f), desires to avoid any disciplinary action, he shall file an apology affidavit with an application for voluntary retirement, provided he/she is eligible for pensionary benefits, and quit employment with all retirement dues, the Employer may accept such application within 15 days of it’s submission. If any Employer desires to reject such apology and the application for voluntary retirement, a reasoned order shall be passed within 15 days, failing which, it shall be deemed to have been accepted.

¶1164

We make it clear that we have issued the above

¶1165

directions in view of the peculiar facts and unforeseen

¶1166

circumstances, as a one time measure in the light of our analysis and conclusions on the material available before us. We also record that,

¶1167

136 of 147

¶1168

Sunny Thote

¶1169

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶1170

it is only in such circumstances, that we are not approving action u/s 91. In any such future cases, Section 91 would have applicability.

¶1171

The fear of ‘black sheep’ manipulating the medical certificates or UDID cards for facilitating their appointment, cannot be ruled out, even in future. Therefore, we direct that, in future, any candidate who applies for a post reserved for a PwD or an in-service candidate claims to have acquired any disability, each such case shall be subjected to the rigours of the exercise as is provided under the RPwD Act, 2016, the 2017 Rules and the Maharashtra Rules, 2024. A UDID card issued by following the due procedure as prescribed by the ‘Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Govt. of India’, for the purpose of issuing UDID CARD through the Swavlambancard.gov.in portal, alone shall be held to be valid. Only such UDID card and accompanying documents would be considered valid, at the first instance, i.e. at the time of his entry in employment from the PwD quota or before extending the PwD service benefits to an in-service candidate.

¶1172

137 of 147

¶1173

Sunny Thote

¶1174

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶1175

We also make it clear that in any such a re-verification exercise, the role of any Doctor involved in the issuance of a bogus medical certificate or UDID card or exaggeration in the disability percentage, is noticed, if the said Doctor is in service, he/she shall be subjected to disciplinary action. The case of such a Doctor shall be referred to the concerned department Head under the letter of the employer/Zilla Parishad/Head of the Education Department of a Corporation etc. for disciplinary action. If such a doctor has superannuated, an FIR shall be registered against him/her.

¶1176

We also direct that henceforth, in recruitment in such instrumentalities as like the Respondents before us, any candidates applying for a post reserved for the PwD, would present their medical certificates and UDID cards, which shall be scrutinized threadbare by the prospective employer and such candidates shall be subjected to a detailed medical examination only to confirm that the medical certificates/UDID cards are genuine and the percentage of disability mentioned therein has been appropriately arrived at. Thereafter, the appointments may be made.

¶1177

138 of 147

¶1178

Sunny Thote

¶1179

902-WP-4325-2026+.odt

¶1180

Pending Interim Applications would not survive and

¶1181

stand disposed off .

¶1182

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)

¶1183

(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶1184

139 of 147

¶1185

Sunny Thote

¶1186

वद ि व ् याग कलं याण व ् �भाग ि / काया�सन-3

¶1187

ANNEXURE ‘X’

¶1188

मा. उच न ्च यायालय, मुंबई येथे दाखल र ् रट याध ि चका क ि ्र . 834/ 2026 � इतर हेमलता रामदास प�ार � इतर व�र ि ु द ्ध महाराष ्ट्र ्र शासन � इतर.

¶1189

शासन विनण�य विदनांक 9 आक्टोबर, 2025 नुसार शासकीय काया�लयांतग�त आस्थापनां�रील बना�ट विदव्यांग प्रमाणपत्राच्या आधारे शासकीय नोकरी विमळवि�लेल्या अधिधकारी

¶1190

/ कम�चारी यांची संख्या � त्यांचे�र करण्यात आलेल्या काय � ाहीबाबत विदनांक 4 मे, 2026 रोर्जीपय„तची सद्यस्थिस्थतीबाबतचा अंतरिरम अह�ाल/ माविहती.:- (जर ि ल ्ज हा पर ् रषद) ि

¶1191

अ.क्र.	काया�लयाचे ना�	एकूण विदव्यांग अधिधकारी/ कम�चाऱ्यांची संख्या	पडताळणी करण्यात आलेल्या अधिधकारी / कम�चाऱ्यांची संख्या	पडताळणीअंती प्रमाणपत्र नसलेले/ बना�ट विदव्यांगत्� प्रमाणपत्र / 40 टक्के पे+ा कमी विदव्यांगत्� अढळलेल्या अधिधकारी / कम�चाऱ्यांची संख्या	शेरा
1	जिर्जल्हा परिरषद रत्नाविगरी	298	130	17	उ��रिरत 54 अधिधकारी / कम�चारी यांची पडताळणी करण्याची काय�ाही सुरु आहे.
2	जिर्जल्हा परिरषद, ठाणे	119	118	09	-
3	ि्ज्ि जिर्जल्हा परिरषद पुणे	629	211	46	मा. उच्च न्यायालय, मुंबई यांचेकडील रिरट विपटीशन क्र. 17568/2025 विद. 24 धिडसें. 2025 नुसार यांधिचकाकत्या�च्या से�ा संरधि+त करण्यात आलेल्या असल्याने मा. उच्च न्यायालय, मुंबई यांचा पुढील आदेश प्राप्त झाल्यानंतर विनयमोचीत काय�ाही करण्यात येईल.
4	जिर्जल्हा परिरषद सिंसधुदूग�	123	0	0	्ं ि् े विदव्यांग प्रमाणपत्राचे आधारे लाभ घेतलेल्या कम�चाऱ्यांचे UDID पडताळणी करण्याची काय�ाही सुरु आहे.
5	जिर्जल्हा परिरषद पालघर	145	118	-	27 कम�चाऱ्यांनी युडीआयडी काड� पुढील तपासणीसाठी सादर केलेले आहेत.
6	जिर्जल्हा परिरषद सांगली	286	286	14
7	ि्ज्ि जिर्जल्हा परिरषद कोल्हापूर	403	114	12	उ��रिरत कम�चारी यांची पडताळणीची काय�ाही सुरू आहे.
8	ि्ज्ि् जिर्जल्हा परिरषद नाणिशक	614	40	27	उ��रीत अधिधकारी / कम�चारी यांची पडताळणी काय�ाही सुरू आहे.

¶1192

140 of 147

¶1193

9	जिर्जल्हा परिरषद अविहल्यानगर	545	409	19
10	जिर्जल्हा परिरषद र्जालना ि्ज्ि	261	192	-	40 कम�चारी पडताळणी वि�रोधात मा. उच्च न्यायालयात गेले असून सदर प्रकरण न्यायप्रवि�ष्ठ आहे.
11	जिर्जल्हा परिरषद परभणी	279	279	01
12	ि्ज्ि जिर्जल्हा परिरषद लातूर	283	282	05	तसेच अद्याप UDID प्राप्त नसलेल्या कम�चाऱ्यां�र शासन विनण�य विद. 27.06.2025 प्रमाणे काय�ाही प्रस्ता�ीत करण्यात आली आहे.
13	जिर्जल्हा परिरषद नांदेड	630	523	04	04 णिश+कांना विनलंविबत केले आहे. 107 कम�चाऱ्यांचे पडताळणी अह�ाल अप्राप्त.
14	जिर्जल्हा परिरषद धाराणिश�	283	112	-	्र्त 112 विदव्यांग अधिधकारी / कम�चाऱ्यांची पडताळणी करण्यात आलेली आहे. तथाविप अह�ाल अद्याविप अप्राप्त आहे. उ��रिरत 171 कम�चाऱ्यांची पडताळणी करण्याची काय�ाही सुरु आहे.
15	जिर्जल्हा परिरषद बुलढाणा	880	880	-	ुु े सदर प्रकरणी विदव्यांग कम�चाऱ्यांच्या विदव्यांगत्�ाची तसेच त्यांचे विदव्यांग प्रमाणपत्र तपासणीची काय�ाही सुरु आहे.
16	जिर्जल्हा परिरषद य�तमाळ	470	470	17	64 कम�चाऱ्यांना कारणे दाख�ा नोटीस बर्जा�ण्यात आलेली असून त्यापैकी 47 कम�चाऱ्यांनी मा. उच्च न्यायालय, खंडपीठ नागपूर येथे याधिचका दाखल केली आहे.
17	जिर्जल्हा परिरषद अकोला	260	-	-	काया�लयात काय�रत विदव्यांग कम�चाऱ्यांची पडताळणी करणेबाबत सूचना विदलेल्या आहेत.
18	जिर्जल्हा परिरषद नागपूर	198	182	01	े ू िे् े
19	जिर्जल्हा परिरषद �धा�	99	95	01	UDID CARD प्रलंविबत असलेल्या एकुण-04 कम�चारी यांना UDID CARD सादर करणेबाबत कारणे दाख�ा नोटीस देण्यात आली असुन विदव्यांग प्रमाणपत्र पडताळणी करणेबाबत काय�ाही सुरु आहे.
20	जिर्जल्हा परिरषद गोंविदया	225	225	04	ुु े ज्या कम�चाऱ्यांनी अद्यापही UDID प्रमाणपत्र काया�लयास सादर केलेले नाही त्यांचे लाभथांबवि�णे बाबत संबंधिधत

¶1194

141 of 147

¶1195

					वि�भागास सूधिचत करण्यात आलेले आहे. तशी काय�ाही संबंधिधत वि�भागांनी केलेली आहे.
21	जिर्जल्हा परिरषद भंडारा	289	286	3
22	जिर्जल्हा परिरषद गडधिचरोली	178	164	01
23	जिर्जल्हा परिरषद नंदुरबार	207	197	2	UDID सादर न केलेल्या 19 कम�चाऱ्यांना कारणे दाख�ा नोटीस देण्यात आलेली आहे.
24	जिर्जल्हा परिरषद र्जळगा�	687	57	29	े् े े 06 कम�चाऱ्यांचे प्रकरण न्यायप्रवि�ष्ठ आहे. 4 कम�चाऱ्यां�र वि�भागीय चौकशी प्रस्तावि�त करण्यात आलेली आहे.
25	जिर्जल्हा परिरषद छत्रपती संभार्जी नगर	353	353	03	UDID सादर न केलेल्या कम�चाऱ्यांचे लाभ थाबवि�णे बाबत सूचना विदलेल्या आहेत.
26	्ज जिर्जल्हा परिरषद बीड	456	16	3	2 कम�चाऱ्यांनी अपील केलेले आहे.
27	ि्ज्ि जिर्जल्हा परिरषद सातारा	697	512	141	सदर 141 कम�चाऱ्यांपैकी 83 कम�चाऱ्यांनी मा. उच्च न्यायालय, मुंबई सर्किट बेंच कोल्हापुर येथे 17 रिरट याधिचका दाखल केल्या आहेत. 134 कम�चाऱ्यांचे पाल् याचे विदव्यांगत्�ाचे प्रमाण 40 टक्के पे+ा कमी आढळून आले असून कार�ाई करण्यात येत आहे. उ��रीत कम�चाऱ्यांच्या विदव्यांगत् � प्रमाणपत्राची पडताळणी करणेबाबतची काय�ाही सुरु आहे.
28	जिर्जल्हा परिरषद रायगड	318	164	-	164 कम�चाऱ्यांपैकी 66 कम�चाऱ्यांची तपासणी उपसंचालक, आरोग्य से�ा, मुंबई मंडळ, ठाणे यांचेकडून करण्यात आली आहे. मात्र अह�ाल अप्राप्त आहेत. णिश+क सं�गा�तील 98 विदव्यांग कम�चाऱ्यांची पडताळणी करण्याबाबत उपसंचालक आरोग्य से�ा, मुंबईमंडळ यांचेकडे सादर केले आहे.
29	जिर्जल्हा परिरषद चंद्रपूर	255	255	6	् े ुं 6 कम�चाऱ्यांचे विदव्यांगत्�ाचे प्रमाण 40 टक्के पे+ा कमी आढळून आले आहे.

¶1196

142 of 147

¶1197

30	जिर्जल्हा परिरषद अमरा�ती	281	281	2	-
31	जिर्जल्हा परिरषद धुळे	264	57	02
32	ि्ज्ि जिर्जल्हा परिरषद किंहगोली	95	80	06
33	ि्ज्ििं जिर्जल्हा परिरषद �ाणिशम	152	66	0	41 कम�चाऱ्यांचे अह�ाल अद्यापी अप्रात आहेत. उ��रिरत 86 कम�चाऱ्यांच्या तपासणीची काय�ाही सुरु आहे.
34	जिर्जल्हा परिरषद सोलापूर	497	381	0	-
	एकूूण	11,759	7,535	375

¶1198

143 of 147

¶1199

वद ि व ् याग स+मीकरण वं �भाग ि / काया�सन-3

¶1200

¶1201

शासन विनण�य विदनांक 9 आक्टोबर, 2025 नुसार शासकीय काया�लयांतग�त आस्थापनां�रील बना�ट विदव्यांग प्रमाणपत्राच्या आधारे शासकीय नोकरी विमळवि�लेल्या अधिधकारी / कम�चारी यांची संख्या � त्यांचे�र करण्यात आलेल्या काय � ाहीबाबत विदनांक 10 र्फेब्रु�ारी, 2026 रोर्जीपय„तची सद्यस्थिस्थतीबाबतचा अंतरिरम अह�ाल/ माविहती. (जिर्जल्हाधिधकारी

¶1202

काया�लय) :-

¶1203

अ.क्र.	काया�लयाचे ना�	एकूण विदव्यांग अधिधकारी/ कम�चाऱ्यांची संख्या	पडताळणी करण्यात आलेल्या अधिधकारी / कम�चाऱ्यांची संख्या	पडताळणीअंती प्रमाणपत्र नसलेले/ बना�ट विदव्यांगत्� प्रमाणपत्र / 40 टक्के पे+ा कमी विदव्यांगत्� अढळलेल्या अधिधकारी / कम�चाऱ्यांची संख्या	शेरा
1	वि�भागीय आयुक्त काया�लय, छत्रपती संभार्जीनगर	279	279	01	1 कम�चाऱ्याचे विदव्यांगत्�ाचे प्रमाण 40 टक्के पे+ा कमी आढळून आले आहे.
2	ं्ज वि�भागीय आयुक्त काया�लय, नाणिशक	4	4	0	-
3	� ि जिर्जल्हाधिधकारी काया�लय, गोंदीया	27	23	-	उ��रिरत कम�चाऱ्यांना UDID प्रमाणपत्र सादर करणेबाबत सुचना विदलेल्या आहेत.
4	� ं जिर्जल्हाधिधकारी काया�लय, गडधिचरोली	17	16	-	े ु िे् े 1 कम�चाऱ्यास पडताळणी करिर ता उपस्थिस्थत राहणेबाबत कळवि�ण्यात आले आहे.
5	जिर्जल्हाधिधकारी काया�लय, कोल्हापूर	61	51	-	10 कम�चाऱ्यांनी UDID ओळखपत्र विमळ�ण्यासाठी अर्ज� सादर केला असून त्यांचे UDID ओळखपत्र अद्याप अप्राप्त आहे.
6	जिर्जल्हाधिधकारी काया�लय, �धा�	20	20	-	्य ्र्त े -
7	जिर्जल्हाधिधकारी काया�लय, नागपूर	34	34	-	-

¶1204

144 of 147

¶1205

8	जिर्जल्हाधिधकारी काया�लय, मुंबईशहर	7	3	-	-
9	जिर्जल्हाधिधकारी काया�लय, चंद्रपूर	18	11	0	-
10	� ं्रू जिर्जल्हाधिधकारी काया�लय, नंदूरबार	13	12	0	-
11	जिर्जल्हाधिधकारी काया�लय, सातारा	4	4	0	-
12	जिर्जल्हाधिधकारी काया�लय, नांदेड	68	46	0	-
	एकूूण	552	503	01	-

¶1206

145 of 147

¶1207

वद ि व ् याग स+मीकरण वं �भाग ि / काया�सन-3

¶1208

¶1209

¶1210

कम�चारी यांची संख्या � त्यांचे�र करण्यात आलेल्या काय � ाहीबाबत विदनांक 10 र्फेब्रु�ारी, 2026 रोर्जीपय„तची सद्यस्थिस्थतीबाबतचा अंतरिरम अह�ाल/माविहती. (महानगरपाजिलका) :-

¶1211

अ.क्र.	काया�लयाचे ना�	एकूण विदव्यांग अधिधकारी/ कम�चाऱ्यांची संख्या	पडताळणी करण्यात आलेल्या अधिधकारी / कम�चाऱ्यांची संख्या	पडताळणीअंती प्रमाणपत्र नसलेले/ बना�ट विदव्यांगत्� प्रमाणपत्र / 40 टक्के पे+ा कमी विदव्यांगत्� अढळलेल्या अधिधकारी / कम�चाऱ्यांची संख्या	शेरा
1	न�ी मुंबई महानगरपाजिलका	60	57	1	-
2	ि चंद्रपुर शहर महानगरपाजिलका, चंद्रपुर	12	12	-	4 कम�चाऱ्यांची पडताळणी करण्यात आली असुन त्यांचे अह�ाल प्राप्त झालेले आहेत. उ��रीत 8 कम�चाऱ्यांचे अह�ाल अद्यापी अप्राप्त आहेत.
3	महानगरपाजिलका, लातुर	5	5	-	-
4	महानगरपाजिलका, धुळे	14	14	-	-
5	महानगरपाजिलका, पुणे	136	06	-	-
6	बृहन्मुंबई महानगरपाजिलका ं ि्ज	1259	188	1	उ��रिरत अधिधकारी / कम�चाऱ्यांच्या पडताळणीची काय�ाही सुरु आहे.
7	सांगली, विमरर्ज � कुप�ाड शहर महानगरपाजिलका	35	35	-	-
8	नागपूर महानगरपाजिलका ंे	48	32	-	- ि्ं् ्र्र ्
9	नांदेड �ाघाळा शहर	47	08	0	विदव्यांगत्� प्रमाणपत्र सादर न करणाऱ्या 3

¶1212

146 of 147

¶1213

महानगरपाजिलका,				कम�चाऱ्यांची वि�भागीय चौकशी प्रस्तावि�त
ि नांदेड				�्ं ि ्र्ि करण्यात आलेली आहे.
ए कूूण	1,616	357	02	-

¶1214

147 of 147

Jayshri Abhiman Pagar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary, Persons With of Disabilities Welfare and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayshri Abhiman Pagar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary, Persons With of Disabilities Welfare and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Unique Fortune Enterprises vs Brihanmumbai Mahangarpalika (Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai)

Mumbai Compost vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Arifa Altaf Rindani (Earlier Known as Arifa Altaf Lakdawala) vs Mumbaii Municipal Corporation through the Commissioner

Sanjay Pukhraj Bafna vs State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary

Milan Surendra Patel vs Vijay Thakkar

G.F Reality Pvt. Ltd. vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay