Dismissed

Arun Kumar Dubey v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC14 Sept 2023WPC/1555/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge Bench entertained a PIL alleging corruption in MBBS admissions and violation of disability certification rules. The court dismissed the plea relying on lack of petitioner credibility and held that RPD Act permits certificates from any authorized authority. Petitioner ordered to pay costs.

What did the court decide?

PIL dismissed. Petitioner ordered to deposit Rs. 25,000 as costs with the State Legal Services Authority within 30 days.

Arun Kumar Dubey Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (PIL) No. 1555 of 2020

¶3

Arun Kumar Dubey aged about 57 years S/o Late Damodar Dubey, R/o Harihar Singh Road, Mobile Tower, Manda Bagicha, Near Patna Khatal, P.O. & P.S. Bariyatu, Misirgonda alias Pahargonda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. ... ... ... ... ... Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand , Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand

¶7

The Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S., District Jharkhand.

¶8

The Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board (JCECEB), Science & Technology Campus, Tupudana Chowk Rd, Sirkha Toli, Kali Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶9

Jai Prakash Sharma, S/o Not Known, the then Private Secretary to the Health Minister, the State of Jharkhand through Department of Health.

¶10

Nitish Kumar, S/o-Prabhu Sharma, R/o-Station Road, Japla, P.O. & P.S.-Hussainabad, District- Palamau, Jharkhand

¶11

Prem Prakash, S/o-Late Niwas Prasad, R/o-Village Biseni Khurd, P.O.-Kharari, P.S.-Nokha, Rohtas (Bihar)

¶12

Pawan Kumar, S/o-Late Chaman Mehta, R/0-H. No.-110, Fhulwariya, P.O. & P.S.Domchanch, District-Koderma, Jharkhand.

¶13

Rajiv Ranjan, S/o-Mr. Sachidanand Rai, R/o-Vill- Kripalpur, P.O.Barotand, P.S.-Dhanwar, District- Giridih, Jharkhand.

¶14

Jyoti Kumari, D/o-Rajeev Kumar, R/o-Sector-II, Q. No.-B/1167, P.O. & P.S.-Jagarnathpur Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶15

Tejaswini, D/o-Rajesh Ranjan, R/o-H. No. 6371, Suniket BIT Road, Rerkhira, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶16

Sushmita Bharti, D/o-Arvind Kumar, R/o-Vill- Simradhab, P.O. Palounjia, P.S.-Birni, District- Giridih, Jharkhand.

¶17

Director, RIMS, Bariatu Road, P.O. & P.S.-Bariatu, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. … … … Respondents.

¶18

… … … Respondents.

¶19

--------- CORAM: SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, C.J. SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

¶20

--------For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate For the State: Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to A.G. For Resp. No. 4: Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, Advocate For Resp No. 8: Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate For Resp. No. 6: Mr. Manoj Prasad, Advocate For Resp. Nos. 10 & 12: Mr. Chandan Tiwari, Advocate For Resp No. 13: Mr.Nipun Bakshi, Advocate ---------

¶21

¶22

08/Dated: 14.09.2023

¶23

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court passed the following, (Per Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)

¶24

ORDER

¶25

1) By filing this Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner Arun Kumar Dubey, who has filed number of Public Interest Litigations which have been disposed of by us as well as by the earlier Division Bench headed by the then Chief Justice, has prayed for a direction to make enquiry/investigation regarding the alleged high level corruption in the admission in M.B.B.S. courses conducted by the Jharkhand Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board (‘JCECEB’ for short) and due to the connivance of the Private Secretary to the then Health Minister Mr. Jai Prakash Sharma and Secretary Mr. Nitin Madan Kulkarni by contravening provision of Section 57 of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and Resolution No. 2249 Dated 03.04.2018, i.e., Annexure-2 to the Public Interest Litigation, of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, which provides that only those certificates regarding disability of persons issued by the authorities notified by the State of Jharkhand are eligible and valid for taking admissions in M.B.B.S. course and other courses.

¶26

2) First of all, the petitioner appears to be a busy body filing several Public Interest Litigations without any valid or reliable credentials in his favour. Thus, relying upon the Rules 4 and 5 of the Jharkhand High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010 and the ratio decided by the Hon’ble Supreme in the case of State of Jharkhand Vs. Shiv Shankar Sharma and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1541 , we are of the view that the Public Interest Litigation should not be entertained.

¶27

3) On the merit also, it is brought to our notice that the private respondent Nos. 6 to 12 have taken admission in Medical Colleges under the Central Quota. It is not disputed that they have produced

¶28

¶29

physical disability certificates issued from the authorities outside the State of Jharkhand.

¶30

4) Section 56 appearing in Chapter X of The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 provides that the Central Government shall notify guidelines for the purposes of assessing the extent of specified disability in a person. This Clause seeks to empower the Central Government to notify guidelines for assessment of specified disabilities. (Notes on Clauses).

¶31

5) Section 57 provides designation of certifying authorities. Subsection (1) of Section 57 provides that the appropriate Government shall designate persons, having requisite qualifications and experience, as certifying authorities, who shall be competent to issue the certificate of disability. Sub-section (2) provides that the appropriate Government shall also notify the jurisdiction within which the terms and conditions subject to which the certifying authority shall perform its certification functions. In Notes of Clauses, it is clarified that this clause seeks the appropriate Government to designate certifying authorities for the purposes of issuance of certificate of disability.

¶32

6) A joint reading of both the Sections leaves no doubt in the mind of the Court that the Central Act, i.e., Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, does not make any distinction between certificates issued by authorities in one State or the other. The relevant aspect that has to be considered is whether the guidelines for assessment have been followed or not and whether the designated authority has been duly authorized by the appropriate Government. In this case, it is not the case of the petitioner that the guidelines for assessment of specified disabilities have not been followed. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the appropriate Government has not designated the authorities who have issued the certificates. Moreover, Section 58 provides for procedures for certification. Sub-section (3) of Section 58 further provides that the certificate of disability issued

¶33

¶34

under this section shall be valid across the country. The Act further provides that this Clause seeks to provide for the procedure for issuance of certificate of disability to any person with specified disability. (Notes on clauses).

¶35

7) Clause 10 of the Resolution of the State Government issued on 03.04.2018 by the State Government, i.e., Annexure 2 of this Public Interest Litigation, provides as follows:

¶36

“10. िनःशঢता ঋमाण पআ जारीकरनेकेिलए स঴म ঋािधकारी :-

¶37

अिधिनयम -2016 की धारा 57 के अ�ग१त ঋािधकृत अिधकारी से ঋा� िनःशঢताঋमाणपআकेआधारपरहीआर঴णकीसुिवधाअनुमा�होगी I

¶38

�ा� , िचिक�ा िश঴ा एवं पौरवार क�ाण िवभाग उঢ अिधिनयमकीसुसंगतधारा ( धारा 57) केअ�ग१त঴ेআवारঋमाणपআजारी करनेवालेঋािधकृत पदािधकारी की सूची जारी करेगा जो आम लोगों के जानकारी के िलए िवभागीय वेबसाइट पर ঋमुखता से ঋदिश१त रहेगा I”

¶39

Interpreting this Clause, the learned counsel Mr. Rajeev Kumar, appearing for the petitioner, would submit that only those persons who have obtained disability certificate from designated authority in the State of Jharkhand can avail the benefit of reservation and those persons who have obtained certificate of disability from any authorized persons outside the State shall not be allowed to participate in the selection process by availing reservation for physically disabled persons.

¶40

8) We are not in agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as, a plain reading of aforesaid Clause 10 does not provide that actually only the authorities designated for the State of Jharkhand can provide a valid certificate to be considered for the purpose of obtaining admission by admitting through the reservation provided for physically challenged persons.

¶41

9) In that view of the matter, we find no merit in the Public Interest Litigation otherwise also.

¶42

¶43

10) In this case, the private respondents have participated in the selection process and have taken admission in the years 2011 to 2013 and the Public Interest Litigation has been filed in the year 2020, i.e., almost after 7 to 9 years of their taking admission. It appears to us that the petitioner has an oblique and ulterior motive in filing this writ petition. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to impose a cost of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) on the petitioner for filing frivolous Public Interest Litigation without having any credibility or credential in his favour. The cost of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) should be deposited in the coffers of the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority within a period of 30 days, failing which the same shall be recovered from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914.

¶44

11) All pending Interlocutory Applications stand disposed of. 12) Urgent Certified copies as per Rules.

¶45

(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)

¶46

(Ananda Sen, J.)

¶47

Manoj/MM

Arun Kumar Dubey v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Kumar Dubey v. the State of Jharkhand

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

Similar cases

Tarapado Dhiwar Vs State of Jharkhand

Sarafraj Ahmad Vs State of Jharkhand

Sita Ram Munda Vs Shri Gopal Singh Central Coalfields Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

M/S Alok Stone Represented through Its Proprietor Alok Ranjan Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of Mines and Geology

M/S Alok Stone Represented through Its Proprietor Alok Ranjan Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of Mines and Geology

Shri Arun Kumar Tiwari Vs the State of Jharkhand