Lohitha K S Vs the Deputy Commissioner

LOHITHA K. S., S/O SHIVEGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, WORKING AS VILLAGE OFFICER, THIRUGANAHALLI CIRCLE, HONAGERE HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT 571401, R/AT SHANKAR RICE MILL OPPOSITE, NEAR RAMDEVI HOSUE, PADUVALAPATNA ROAD, NAGAMANGALA, MANDYA DISTRICT 571401.

¶14

…PETITIONER

¶15

(BY SRI RAMAKRISHNA N., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA 571401.

¶18

THE THASILDHAR, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT 571401.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI K. R. RAJENDRA, AGA FOR R1 & R2)

¶21

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:21462-DB WP No. 26615 of 2023

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 17.11.2023 PASSED BY THE KSAT IN A.No-1338/2023 CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

¶28

Heard learned counsel Sri. N. Ramakrishna for the petitioner and learned AGA Sri. K.R. Rajendra for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶29

The petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by order dated 17.11.2023 in Application No.1338/2023 whereby the petitioner's challenge to order dated 09.03.2023 (Annexure-A6) directing the Tahsildar to subject the petitioner to a medical examination at All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysore (for short, 'AIISH') with regard to his physical disability, has been rejected.

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:21462-DB WP No. 26615 of 2023

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

The petitioner was selected and appointed as

¶33

Village Accountant in quota meant for physically challenged persons. It is stated that the service of the petitioner was confirmed on 08.11.2013. It is also stated that the Mandya Institute of Medical Sciences (MIMS) had issued a Medical Report dated 30.12.2014 stating that the petitioner suffers disability of a bilateral Sensori Nueral hearing loss of 42.5%. It is the case of the petitioner that when once he has undergone medical examination and when the Medical Board has issued certificate certifying that he suffers 42.5% disability, again the respondents could not have subjected the petitioner for medical examination. The Tribunal by its order dated 17.11.2023, rejected the petitioner's challenge holding that the action of the respondents is in accordance with the law.

¶34

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶35

and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal as well as Annexure-A6 letter dated 09.03.2023.

¶36

It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was appointed as Village Accountant under quota meant for

¶37

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:21462-DB WP No. 26615 of 2023

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

physically challenged persons. On a complaint received with regard to the disability of the petitioner, the authorities have taken a decision to refer the petitioner for medical examination at the AIISH. It is not known as to why the petitioner is hesitant to undergo the medical examination. The AIISH is a specialized Institute with regard to speech and hearing. The petitioner claims disability with regard to speech and hearing therefore, appropriately, the respondent-authorities have referred the petitioner to undergo medical test at AIISH.

¶40

We do not find any merit in the writ petition. If the petitioner undergoes the medical test at AIISH, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner. Writ petition stands rejected.

¶41

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶42

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶43

VBS/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 19

Lohitha K S v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lohitha K S v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mudur Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Sangha Ltd., Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

Katapady Co. Operative Agricultural Society Ltd., Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

Karnataka State Co-Opeartive Vs the Asst. Director of Income Tax

Pradeep Kumar Y Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Gireesh T S Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Anand Vs the State of Karnataka