Disposed

Pradip Kakati v. the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Gauhati HC8 Jan 2024WP(C)/71/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioners holding disability certificates showing 40% or more disability were directed to appear before a specially constituted Medical Board for reassessment of their disability during Grade-III and Grade-IV recruitment. The Court declined to decide the merits and directed the respondents to communicate the decision on each petitioner's individual disability status vis-a-vis appointment in

What the court decided

AI extract

Pradip Kakati Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2024)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010002352024

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/71/2024

¶5

PRADIP KAKATI

¶6

S/O LATE TULSHI KAKATI, R/O VILL-BALIPUKHURI TINIALI, P.O.BALIPUKHURI TINIALI, P.S.-TEZPUR, DIST- SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN-784154

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS

¶9

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI, DELHI-110001

¶10

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT DISPUR JANATA BHAWAN GUWAHATI-6

¶11

3:THE STATE LEVEL POLICE RECRUITMENT BOARD ASSAM REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN/SECRETARY MAHADEVPUR REHABARI GUWAHATI-8

¶12

4:THE GAUHATI UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR GOPINATH BORDOLOI NAGAR JALUKBARI GUWAHATI-14

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

5:THE DIRECTOR ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY DEPARTMENT ASSAM CHENIKUTHI GUWAHATI-03

¶15

6:THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES SONITPUR DIST- SONITPUR ASSAM. 7:THE MEDICAL BOARD GAUHATI MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL GUWAHATI-32 ASSA

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S K ROY

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I.

¶18

BEFORE

¶19

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Date : 09/01/2024

¶22

Heard Mr. S. K. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner(s) in this batch of writ petitions. I have also heard Mr. T.C. Chutia as well as Mr. R. Dhar, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, Mr. R. M. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Social Justice and Empowerment Department, Assam, Mr. S. S. Roy, learned CGC, Ms. H. Terangpi, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department, Assam, Mr. D. Upamanyu, learned Standing Counsel, Health and Family Welfare Department, Assam, Mr. P.J. Phukan, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati University and Ms. M.D. Borah, learned Standing Counsel, Transport Department, Assam, appearing for the respective official respondents.

¶23

The controversy arising in all these writ petitions, is common and, therefore, these cases have been bunched together.

¶24

The writ petitioners in all these cases are individually holding Disability certificates issued by the competent authority under the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, Assam, indicating the degree and nature of their disability. According to the certificates held by them, each of the

¶25

Page No.# 3/4

¶26

petitioners meet the “Bench Mark” disability criteria of 40% disability, thus making them eligible to seek Government employment as candidates belonging to the Person with Disability (PwD) category. As such, on the strength of these certificate(s), the petitioners had applied for and had taken part in the recruitment process initiated by the Government departments for filling up of a number of GradeIII and Grade- IV posts. However, after the selection process was over, the writ petitioners have been asked to appear before a specially constituted Medical Board so as to verify/reassess the nature and extent of the disability suffered by them. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petitions have been filed inter alia contending that since the petitioners are holding a Disability Certificate issued by the competent authority, there was no further requirement under the law or any legal justification to subject the petitioners to further scrutiny by another Medical Board, as have been done in their cases.

¶27

Mr. D. Upamanyu, learned Standing Counsel, Health and FW Department, Assam, submits that the role of the Health and FW Department, Assam, in these cases, is only to the extent of constituting a Special Medical Board so as to assess the nature and extent of disability suffered by the candidates, on the request of the Nodal Department i.e. the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment. Therefore, the Health Department does not have any independent stand in the matter. He further submits that on such verification, the disability of some of the candidates have been found to be less than the “Bench Mark” of 40% disability. Mr. Upamanyu, however, submits that the outcome of the assessment by the specially constituted Medical Board have already been forwarded to the Social Justice and Empowerment Department, Assam, in respect of each candidate examined by the Board.

¶28

Mr. T.C. Chutia as well as Mr. R. Dhar, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam and Mr. R.M. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Social Justice and Empowerment Department, Assam, have submitted that in many cases, it has been found that the disability condition varies from that mentioned in the certificates and hence, this exercise.

¶29

By producing a copy of the Office Memorandum dated 21/05/2022 issued by the Government of Assam, Department of Personal, Dispur, more particularly, clause- 5 of the OM, the learned Government Advocate, Assam, further submit that it is permissible under the law to subject the candidates for verification/reassessment of their disability through a competent mechanism and hence, this exercise.

¶30

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that although all the petitioners are holding Disability Certificates which project them as candidates suffering from “bench mark” disability, yet, it appears that as per the opinion of the specially constituted Medical Board, the disability of some of the candidates have been found to be less than the “Bench Mark” criteria of 40%

¶31

Page No.# 4/4

¶32

disability. There may be cases where the extent of disability of some of the candidates have undergone changes since the issuance of their Disability Certificates or there was some error in assessing their disability status either by the original authority issuing the Certificates or by the Specially Constituted Medical Board. However, the said aspect of the matter cannot be gone into by this Court unless the petitioners are communicated with the decision of the authorities in this regard, thereby, giving them an opportunity to assail such decision, on merit, if so advised.

¶33

As such, without expressing any opinion on the stand of the learned departmental counsel or the findings and observations of the Medical Board, these writ petitions are being disposed of by directing the respondents to communicate the decision of the authorities pertaining to the individual disability status of the writ petitioners vis-a-vis their claim for appointment of each of the writ petitioners against the posts applied for, in writing, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. Liberty is granted to the writ petitioners to assail the decision of the Medical Board and/or Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, as the case may be, by filing fresh writ petitions, if so advised.

¶34

Writ petitions stand closed.

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

sukhamay

¶37

Comparing Assistant

Pradip Kakati v. the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Pradip Kakati v. the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanak Chandra Roy Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Bhupendra Nath Deka Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Dharani Baishya Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Sukanya Borgohain Vs the Union of India and 7 Ors.

Souravjyoti Koushik Vs the Union of India and 7 Ors.

Magar Kalita Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.