Paran Pratim Gogoi Vs the Assam Public Service Commission and 6 Ors.

4:THE COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 5:THE SPECIAL SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DEPTT. DISPUR

¶15

Page No.# 2/6

¶16

GUWAHATI 781006

¶17

6:THE DEPUTY SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

¶18

ESTT B BRANCH (CONFIDENTIAL CELL) PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DEPTT. DISPUR

¶19

GUWAHATI 781006

¶20

7:THE MEDICAL BOARD CONSTITUTED BY THE PRICNCIPAL CUM CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT

¶21

GUWAHATI MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL BHANGAGARH

¶22

GUWAHATI 781032 FOR MEDICAL EXAMINATION AND EXAMINATION DISABILITY (PWBD) STATUS IN TERMS OF THE ADVETISEMENT NO 05/2025 DTD. 22/01/2025 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

¶23

ESTT B BRANCH (CONFIDENTIAL CELL) PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DEPTT. DISPUR

¶24

GUWAHATI 78100

¶25

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B D GOSWAMI, MR. A GOSWAMI,MR. J M GOGOI

¶26

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APSC, SC, HEALTH,SC, PWD

¶27

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

¶28

ORDER

¶29

11.06.2026

¶30

Heard Mr. B. D. Goswami learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Nayak, learned Additional AG & Standing Counsel, PWD; Mr. D. Upamanyu, learned Standing Counsel, Health.

¶31

2. The petitioner claims to be a person with benchmark disability having visual impairment and holding Unique Disability ID issued by the Government of India. The petitioner presented his/her candidature in response to an advertisement

¶32

Page No.# 3/6

¶33

dated 22.01.2025 for filling up posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) under the joint cadre of the Public Works Roads Department (PWRD) and the Public Works (Building & NH) Department. The petitioner issued a disability certificate on 07.09.2021 by the Joint Director of Health Services and in terms of the said certificate, it was mentioned that the petitioner has 40% permanent disability in relation to his left eye, as per the guidelines notified by the Government of India vide S.O. 76(E) dated 04.01.2018. The petitioner was recommended in the result published by the Assam Public Services Commission dated 11.11.2025, and the petitioner’s name was shown against the PwBD category. The petitioner was intimated by notice dated 12.12.2025 that he, along with 17 other candidates who were recommended against the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities, were required to appear before the Medical Board constituted by the Principal-cum-Chief Superintendent, Gauhati Medical College and Hospital, for medical examination and examination of PwBD status as per the schedule. The petitioner appeared before the said Medical Board and, thereupon, vide notice dated 17.01.2026, the petitioner was held to be not eligible on the ground that the clinical and investigation findings did not correlate with the certified data. Thereafter, the petitioner goes himself examined by an Eye Specialist, and it was opined that the petitioner was visually handicapped by more than 50%. The petitioner submitted representation on 21.01.2026, seeking a re-medical examination based upon the disability certificate and for referring the case to the Appellate Medical Board for final reassessment. The same having not been considered, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶34

3. Notices in the matter were issued. However, no affidavit has been filed by the respondents.

¶35

Page No.# 4/6

¶36

4. The limited prayer made in the petition is for interference and setting aside of the disqualification order and for re-evaluation by an independent Medical Board.

¶37

5. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel representing the State submitted that if there is a direction from the Court then as per the direction a Special Medical Board will be reconstituted for re-evaluation of the petitioner and thereafter, the necessary evaluation will be undertaken and the particulars will be furnished to the person concerned as well as before the Court.

¶38

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not object to the suggestions made by the respondents.

¶39

7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, since the prayer made before the Court is that a fresh evaluation is called for by an independent Medical Board, this Court is of the view that in the absence of any affidavit being filed by the respondents and in the absence of any particulars and materials placed before the Court by the petitioner also, as to the basis on which the writ petitioner was granted the certificates of benchmark disability by the authorities prescribed in respective districts, this Court is of the view that ends of justice will suffice, if the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the Principal-cum-Chief Superintendent, Gauhati Medical College & Hospital (GMCH) to reconstitute a Medical Board comprising of specialists, who would be considered competent to examine the petitioner who claim to be a specially abled person and who claim to hold the benchmark disability certificate issued by the prescribed authorities. The Principal-cum-Chief Superintendent,

¶40

Page No.# 5/6

¶41

GMCH will be personally present in the committee constituted and will be at liberty to include members who according to him would be competent to determine the percentage of disability in respect of the writ petitioner. It is also to be noted that in respect of petitioner the medical records on the basis of which the earlier disability certificate was issued by the competent authority should be called for and examined and thereafter, the evaluation is to be done and appropriate certificate as to whether or not the petitioner falls within the benchmark disability are to be issued individually to the petitioner.

¶42

8. In the event the medical records in respect of the petitioner on the basis of which the earlier benchmark disability certificate was issued by the district authorities is not available then a specific remark to that aspect should also be made in the certificate, which is to be issued as directed. The petitioner as well as the respondents will serve certified copies of this order to the Principal-cumChief Superintendent, GMCH and within 10 days thereafter, the said authority will reconstitute the Medical Board as directed. The petitioner will be personally intimated through telephone, email, etc. to be present on the dates when the examinations are to be conducted by the Medical Board to be so constituted as directed.

¶43

9. If the petitioner is found to be within the parameters prescribed for benchmark disability, then consequential orders regarding the selection of the petitioner to the posts for which he had applied for, pursuant to the advertisement and the appointment thereto shall be issued by the respective department.

¶44

Page No.# 6/6

¶45

10. Copies of the evaluation reports should also be furnished to concerned authority, which may be required to issue appropriate appointment orders.

¶46

11. If the posts in which petitioner is offering his/her candidature has not been filled up the same shall not be filled up by the respondent authorities till the medical evaluation as directed is concluded.

¶47

12. The competent authorities in the district namely the Joint Director, Health who had issued the disability certificate to the petitioner shall ensure that the complete medical reports in respect of the petitioner is furnished and placed before the Medical Board as directed to be constituted by this Court, within the time frame as sought for by the Principal-cum-Chief Superintendent, GMCH.

¶48

13. In term of the above observations, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶49

JUDGE

¶50

Comparing Assistant

Paran Pratim Gogoi v. the Assam Public Service Commission and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paran Pratim Gogoi v. the Assam Public Service Commission and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bakul Nath Vs the Union of India and Othrs

Ashish Kapinjal Vs the Assam Public Service Commission and 3 Ors.

Jc- 362324 M Naib Subedar/ Clerk MD Ibomcha Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

Prosen Haflongbar Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Harmohan Chakravarty and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Bhairab Ch Saud Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.