Janakalyan Majhi Vs Secretary to Govt.of Odisha

For Petitioner : Mr. S.K. Tripathy, Advocate For Opp. parties : Mr. D. Mohanty, AGA (for O.P. No.1) Mr. P.K. Nayak, Advocate (for O.P. No.2) Mr. A. Mohanty, Advocate (for AIIMS, Bhubaneswar)

¶11

¶12

P R E S E N T:

¶13

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO

¶14

Date of Hearing & Judgment:08.05.2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶15

M.S. SAHOO, J

¶16

1. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner

¶17

who is an applicant for the selection to the post of Junior

¶18

Assistant in category of Scheduled Caste (SC), Persons

¶19

Page 1 of 8

¶20

with Disability (PwD), seeking a direction re-verification of his disability percentage as determined by the appellate medical board in terms of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Rules, 1996.

¶21

2. Considering the prayer of the petitioner and the submissions of the opposite party no.2, by order dated 18^th June, 2024, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had directed the disability to be decided by the expert Ophthalmologist/Medical Board to be constituted by the Director, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Bhubaneswar for check up and determination of the percentage of visual impairment. Thereafter, by order dated 02.08.2024, Mr. A. Mohanty, learned counsel for AIIMS sought for time to obtain instruction and file affidavit. Affidavit on behalf of the AIIMS, Bhubaneswar has been filed, which forms part of the case record. Copy has been served on Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. Learned AGA also refers to the said report of AIIMS as available in the brief marked at Flag-“K”.

¶22

Page 2 of 8

¶23

// 3 //

¶24

3. Brief facts of the case are that pursuant to the advertisement made by the opposite party-authority, the petitioner applied. His candidature was accepted by the authority on 16^th October, 2017 (Annexure-1). The authority issued a letter directing the petitioner to attend skill test on 19.10.2017. As the petitioner succeeded in the qualifying skill test, letter dated 12^th January, 2018 was issued by the opposite party no.2. For genuineness of disability of candidate, he was directed to be examined by Appellate Medical Board at the SCB Medical College and Hospital (SCBMCH), Cuttack. He was examined in the SCBMCH on 18.01.2018 in the Eye Department.

¶25

4. There happens to be difference between the opinion of the District Medical Board and the Appellate Medical Board at the SCBMCH, Eye Department regarding the percentage of disability that is loss of vision suffered by petitioner. The District Medical Board at Jagatsinghpur has determined the disability, i.e., the level of impairment to be 40% whereas the Appellate Medical Board has opined the level of the vision impairment to be 30%. Being 40% visually impaired, the petitioner as per the statute and advertisement made by the opposite party no.2 is eligible for

¶26

Page 3 of 8

¶27

// 4 //

¶28

selection in the category of PwD by applying the criteria of persons of disability in the category of SC.

¶29

5. In view of the prayer in the writ petition for referring to a Medical Board for test of the disability suffered by the petitioner, the affidavit filed on behalf of the AIIMS, Bhubaneswar has to be considered and dealt with in some detail. Paragraphs-2,3,4, 5 and 6 of the affidavit of the Senior Administrative Officer, AIIMS, Bhubaneswar is reproduced herein:-

¶30

“2) That, in the above case this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 18.06.2024, directed for constitution of a Board by the Director, AIIMS, Bhubaneswar for checking the percentage of visual impairment and the Medical Board shall submit a report before this Hon’ble Court one week thereafter.

¶31

3) That, however on being received the details communication address the existing Medical Board have treated the Petitioner on dated 30.07.2024 and the report has been submitted by Dr. Sucheta Parija to the Medical Superintendent, AIIMS, Bhubaneswar on 02.08.2024. The copy of the report dated 02.08.2024 along with other medical documents are filed herewith as Annexure-A.

¶32

4) That, in this connection the Director, SSEPD Department, Govt. of Odisha, communicated letter on 20.07.2024 addressing to Director, AIIMS, Bhubaneswar wherein request was made to send the report of the Medical Board to Senior Asst. Secretary, Paradip Port Trust, (Administrative Section) under intimation to this department. The copy of the letter dated 20.07.2024 is filed herewith as Annexure-B.

¶33

Page 4 of 8

¶34

// 5 //

¶35

5) That, it is to submit here that upon receipt of the letter dated 20.07.2024 the Authority of AIIMS on 06.08.2024 send the report of the Medical Board to Senior Secretary, Paradip Port Trust (Administrative Section) vide speed post letter No.2822 dated 06.08.2024 and the same has been delivered to the Authority of Paradip Port Trust. The copy of the letter dated 06.08.2024 along with proof of sending of said medical report is filed herewith as Annexure-C. 6) That, in this case last occasion, this Hon’ble Court passed an order to file affidavit by the Authority of AIIMS, accordingly the present affidavit is filed for necessary compliance of order of this Hon’ble Court wherein it is evident that the Medical Board has treated the petitioner and report thereof has already been sent to the Paradip Post Trust on 06.08.2024.”

¶36

6. The affidavit filed by the AIIMS authority encloses the report dated 2^nd August, 2024 of the Professor and Head of the Department, Department of Ophthalmology, AIIMS, Bhubaneswar (Annexure-A) which read as follows:-

¶37

“Sub: RE-EXAMIANTION OF SRI JANAKALYAN MAJHI DISABILITY, AS PER DIRECTION IN CASE NO.WP(C) No.10147/2018 OF HON’BLE ORISSA HIGH COURT.

¶38

Respected Sir,

¶39

As per your email to re-examine the disability of Sri Janakalyan Majhi (By the direction in case No.W.P.(C) No.10147 of 2018 of Hon’ble High Court) was done on 30.07.2024. On examination, the Visual Acuity was no perception of light in the right eye and best Corrected Visual Acuity (With Standard Correction) 6/24 for distance and N10 for near in left eye. There is scope of improvement of vision with management in left eye. The visual disability category is 60% and temporary for 1 year.”

¶40

Page 5 of 8

¶41

// 6 //

¶42

The report encloses the out-patient card dated 30th July, 2024 of the petitioner indicating that he had visited outpatient department of Department of Ophthalmology for comprehensive eye examination, trauma with wooden stick five years back.

¶43

7. Report dated 02.08.2024 clearly indicates complete loss of vision in left eye due to opacity and visual disability category to be of 60% and temporary for one year. The loss of vision being 60% in the left eye and complete loss of vision in the right eye, the best corrected visual activity being 6/24 for distance and N10 for the near in the left eye; making the disability 60% and temporary for one year.

¶44

8. The said report corroborates the findings of the District Medical Board, Jagatsinghpur rather the disability as found by the Professor of AIIMS on 30th July, 2024 was more than 40% in the left eye, in the right eye there being no perception of light.

¶45

8. The prayer for the petitioner to re-verification of his disability has been satisfied by the direction of this Court by order dated 18.06.2024. The writ petition has to be allowed.

¶46

The petitioner’s disability found by the Medical Board of AIIMS to be 60% in the left eye and complete loss

¶47

Page 6 of 8

¶48

// 7 //

¶49

of sight in the right eye, the consequence would be that the petitioner after being duly selected was entitled to get appointment in the S.C. (PwD) category. It has to be held that the petitioner has been wrongly deprived of getting appointment, may be in fortuitous circumstances.

¶50

9. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 submitted on 24.04.2024 that since the writ petition did not raise an issue regarding getting appointment, he has not obtained instruction whether there is any vacancy or not.

¶51

By order dated 24.04.2024, the following was

¶52

directed:

¶53

“9. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 is directed to obtain instruction regarding the number of posts advertised in the SC (PwD) category as per the advertisement in question, number of persons engaged, position of merit of the petitioner in the selection process, the subsequent vacancies arising due to retirement or vacancy for any other reason in the said post. The instruction shall also be obtained regarding availability of any vacancy in any category.”

¶54

10. The learned counsel Mr. Nayak appearing for the opposite party no.2 has obtained instruction by electronic mail (e-mail) dated 06.05.2025 from the opposite party no.2. The copy of the printout of e-mail is taken on record. The e-mail indicates the following:

Page 7 of 8

// 8 //

“In nutshell,

1.The total vacancy available in the cadre of Jr.

¶59

Assistant=05 (ST vacancies)

¶60

2.The candidature of the petitioner to be considered against these vacancies as per the orders passed in W.P. (c) No.5850 of 2019=02 (UR category)

¶61

3.The remaining clear vacancies in the cadre of Jr.

¶62

Assistant=03 (ST vacancies)”

¶63

11. In view of the clear vacancy available, the petitioner belonging to the (PwD) category shall be given appointment. It is directed that the petitioner shall be given appointment against any of the vacancy available as would be decided by the authority.

¶64

The writ petition is allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid direction.

¶65

Before parting with the case, this Court records its appreciation of the learned counsel appearing for the parties in rendering effective assistance to arrive at a conclusion in a petition pending for last seven years granting relief to the petitioner who has disability, yet has

¶66

been running from pillar to post to get appointment after becoming successful in selection process.

¶67

Signature Not Verified

¶68

Digitally Signed Signed by: JYOSTNARANI MAJHEE Reason: Authentication Orissa High Court, Cuttack Location: OHC The 8^th May , 20 25/Jyostna Date: 09-May-2025 18:08:44

¶69

Page 8 of 8

Janakalyan Majhi v. Secretary to Govt.of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Janakalyan Majhi v. Secretary to Govt.of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Padmalav Sahoo Vs Union of India

Susanta Ku.Baral Vs State of Odisha

Mustari Begum Vs Sk. Sabaz

Bhagirathi Jena Vs State of Odisha

Sonalisa Ranasingh Vs Lokanath Ranasingh

Geoserve Energy Transport Dmcc Vs Mv Teleri M (Imo 9648867)