Dismissed¶42

Pradeep Kumar Y v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC17 Apr 2026WP/26620/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Village Accountant; appointment under physically challenged quota; fresh medical examination referral after complaint; AIISH Mysore; hearing impairment 60% (10.04.2011) and claimed 76% (28.12.2017, not on record); KSAT Application No. 845/2023; Annexures A, A5, F; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal (dated 17.11.2023 in Application No. 845/2023) or with the Annexure-F letter dated 22.11.2023. ¶38

Pradeep Kumar Y Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, appointed under the quota for physically challenged persons and having earlier medical certifications (60% in 2011; claimed 76% AIISH report), could again be subjected to a medical examination at AIISH pursuant to a complaint about his disability. +1 more

¶37

Court's answer

The Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal (dated 17.11.2023 in Application No. 845/2023) or with the Annexure-F letter dated 22.11.2023.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

Referral of the petitioner for medical examination at AIISH was appropriate, as AIISH is a specialised institute for speech and hearing and the petitioner claims disability with regard to speech and hearing.

¶41

Key takeaways

If the petitioner undergoes the medical test at AIISH, no prejudice would be caused to him.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Coram: S.G. Pandit and K.V. Aravind, JJ.; oral order per S.G. Pandit, J.) dismisses Writ Petition No. 26620 of 2023 (S-KSAT) filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by a Village Accountant appointed under the quota for physically challenged persons, declining to quash the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal's order dated 17.11.2023 in Application No. 845/2023 (Annexure-A), which rejected his challenge to the direction dated 07.02.2023 (Annexure-A5) to undergo medical examination at the All India Institute of Speech and Hearing (AIISH), Mysore, following a complaint about his disability. The Court held the referral appropriate because AIISH is a specialised institute for speech and hearing and the petitioner claims such disability, and that no prejudice would be caused if he underwent the test. Prior certifications noted: 60% hearing impairment (Government Hospital, Hospet Division, certificate dated 10.04.2011) and a claimed AIISH Medical Report dated 28.12.2017 of 76% bilateral sensorineural hearing loss, which was not placed on record. The Annexure-F letter dated 22.11.2023 was also left untouched.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:21466-DB WP No. 26620 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶10

WRIT PETITION No. 26620 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

PRADEEP KUMAR Y., S/O BHARMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, WORKING AS VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT MULAKATTE CIRCLE, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571401, R/AT SARAMGALA KOPPALILLU VILLAGE, BINDIGANAVILE VILLAGE, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571401.

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶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

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 KARNATAKA STATE

¶22

¶23

NC: 2026:KHC:21466-DB WP No. 26620 of 2023

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION No. 845/2023, CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

The petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by order dated 17.11.2023 in Application No.845/2023 whereby the petitioner's challenge to order dated 07.02.2023 (Annexure-A5) 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.

¶33

The petitioner was selected and appointed as Village Accountant in the quota meant for physically challenged persons. It is stated that the service of the petitioner was

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:21466-DB WP No. 26620 of 2023

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

confirmed. It is also stated that before issuing the appointment order, the petitioner appeared before Government Hospital for medical examination at Hospet Division, Ballary District and the said Hospital issued a certificate on 10.04.2011 stating that the applicant has suffered 60% of hearing impairment. It is further stated that the applicant has appeared before the AIISH, and AIISH had issued a Medical Report dated 28.12.2017 stating that the petitioner suffers disability of a bilateral Sensorinueral hearing loss of 76%, which is not placed on record. It is the case of the petitioner that, once he has undergone medical examination and when the Medical Board has issued certificate certifying that he suffers 76% 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.

¶38

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties 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-F letter dated 22.11.2023.

¶39

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:21466-DB WP No. 26620 of 2023

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

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

¶42

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.

¶43

Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶44

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶45

VBS/ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 20

Pradeep Kumar Y v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar Y 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

Lohitha K S Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Gireesh T S Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Anand Vs the State of Karnataka