Disposed¶31

Payal Priya Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC8 May 2024WP(C)/5902/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

hearing disability temporary versus permanent classification; SN Hearing Loss; conflicting medical reports SCB Medical College Cuttack audiogram Annexure-8 versus AIIMS Bhubaneswar Annexure-9; PH category Regular Teacher appointment; TGT(PCM) select list 17.11.2023 Annexure-2; 52% permanent disability direction; Odisha teacher recruitment disabled candidate verification; W.P.(C) 5902/2024 High Court of Orissa disposed 08.05.2024.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with the direction that the petitioner's disability be treated as 52% permanent, and O.P. No.3 to do the needful in accordance with her position in the Annexure-2 notification within six weeks. ¶31

Payal Priya Sahoo Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the Audiogram Report dated 29.01.2024 (Annexure-5) and the letter dated 05.02.2024 (Annexure-8) showing the petitioner's disability as 52% temporary ought to be quashed. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

In view of the conflicting reports — the original certificate showing 47% permanent disability (Annexure-3 series), the SCBMCH report showing 52% temporary (Annexure-8), and the AIIMS, Bhubaneswar report corroborating permanence (Annexure-9) — the petitioner's disability is to be treated as permanent in nature with 52% permanent disability.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

O.P. No.3 is directed to do the needful taking into account the petitioner's position in the notification issued under Annexure-2, within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (W.P.(C) No.5902 of 2024, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, order dated 08.05.2024, Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.) — Petitioner, selected against the post of TGT(PCM) as a disabled candidate with her name in the select list notified on 17.11.2023 (Annexure-2), held a disability certificate showing 47% permanent disability (Annexure-3 series). On fresh verification, SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack reported (letter dated 05.02.2024, Annexure-8) her disability as 52% temporary, pursuant to which she was denied the appointment benefit; a later SCBMCH report justified Annexure-8 on the ground that her 2016 hearing loss had improved from 50% to 47%. An AIIMS, Bhubaneswar report dated 04.04.2024 (Annexure-9) found disability at 50% of the Right Ear and 55% of the Left Ear, reflected as SN Hearing Loss, and the State did not dispute that report. Holding that, in view of the conflicting reports, the petitioner's disability should be treated as permanent in nature with 52% permanent disability, the Court directed O.P. No.3 to do the needful taking into account the petitioner's position in the Annexure-2 notification within six weeks, and disposed of the writ petition.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.5902 of 2024

¶3

Payal Priya Sahoo

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha and Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Rath, ASC

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

¶9

Order No.

¶10

ORDER 08.05.2024

¶11

06. 1. These matters are taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

¶12

2. Heard Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S. Rath, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

¶13

3 . The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer: -

¶14

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to admit the writ application, issue notice to the Opp. Parties and upon hearing be further pleased to direct the opp. parties to quash the Audiogram Report dated 29.01.2024 under Annexure-5 and the letter dated 05.02.2024 under Annexure-8 in respect of the petitioner.

¶15

And further be pleased to direct the opp. parties to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Regular Teacher (PH) Category in view of the certificate issued in the year 2024.”

¶16

4. It is contended that basing on the advertisement issued under Annexure-1, petitioner was found eligible to

¶17

// 2 //

¶18

get the benefit of appointment as against the post of TGT(PCM) and her name was also reflected in the select list so published vide notification dated 17.11.2023 under Annexure-2. Since, petitioner was selected as a disabled candidate, as per the provisions contained in the advertisement, she was referred for further verification of her disability. On such verification, when her disability was found at 52 % temporary instead of permanent vide Annexure-8, petitioner challenging the same is before this Court with the aforesaid prayer.

¶19

4. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the certificate originally issued in her favour vide Annexure-3 series, petitioner’s disability was reflected at 47% permanent. But as because her disability was shown as 52% temporary under Annexure-8, petitioner was deprived from getting the benefit of appointment.

¶20

4. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that subsequent to the report submitted by the Competent Authority under Annexure-8, petitioner examined herself in AIIMS, Bhubaneswar. In the report submitted on 04.04.2024 vide Annexure-9, petitioner’s disability was found at 50% of the Right Ear and 55% of the Left Ear, such disability was also reflected as SN Hearing Loss.

¶21

4. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that true meaning of SN Hearing Loss is permanent and in support of the same, petitioner produced a downloaded copy from the website vide Annexure-10.

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

// 3 //

¶24

4. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner taking into account the report submitted by the AIIMS under Annexure-9 and the information downloaded vide Annexure-10, contended that since the disability of the petitioner i.e. SN Hearing Loss is permanent in nature, she is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of appointment and the disability shown as 52% Temporary vide Annexure-8 is not acceptable. It is accordingly contended that appropriate direction be issued to the Opp. Parties to provide her appointment taking into account her position in the select list so issued under Annexure-2.

¶25

5. Mr. S. Rath, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand made his submission basing on the materials available on record. It is contended that petitioner’s disability though was originally found at 47% permanent vide Annexure-3 series, but when she was referred for fresh verification, the authorities of SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack while submitting the report on 05.02.2024 under Annexure-8, found her disability at 52% temporary.

¶26

5. 1. It is also contended that pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 13.03.2024, a further report has been submitted by the authorities of SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack justifying the report so issued under Annexure-8, inter alia taking the ground that since in the year 2016 Hearing Loss of the petitioner was improved from 50% to 47%, the disability cannot be taken as permanent.

¶27

5. 2. However, learned Addl. Standing Counsel does not dispute the report submitted by AIIMS, Bhubaneswar which was relied on by the petitioner vide Annexure-9.

¶28

Page 3 of 4

¶29

// 4 //

¶30

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court is of the view that since originally the disability of the petitioner was shown as 47% permanent vide Annexure-3 series and the same has been found to be true in the report submitted by the AIIMS, Bhubaneswar under Annexure-9 vis-à-vis Annexure-8, in view of such conflicting report, this Court is of the view that petitioner’s disability should be treated as permanent in nature with 52% permanent disability. While holding so, this Court directs O.P. No.3 to do the needful taking into account the position of the petitioner in the notification issued under Annexure-2, within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

¶31

7. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶32

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

¶33

Basudev

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Reason: Authentication of order Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 16-May-2024 16:35:27

¶36

Page 4 of 4