Rima Taipodia versus Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission & Ors.

C seeking appointment to the Group B post - Requirement of minimum 40% disability - Certificate on basis of which appellant appointed not issued by the State Medical Board - Issuance of direction by the High Court to the appellant to appear before the State Medical Board for assessment of his disability - On examination, appellant found to have total disability of only 33.9% - Held: Under the Rules,

¶13

D it. is required to be certified that either a person is suffering from permanent disabili!Ji where there are no chances of variation in the degree of disability and if there is any chance of variatiOn in the degree of disability, it should be indicated iii the Certificate that the Certificate is for a particular period of validity - Certificate relied

¶14

E on· by the appellant not time bound, thus, no chances of variation in the degree of disability- It was meant to be a permanent disability - State Medical Board has assessed the disability to be below 40%, which meant that the appellant did not have 40% disability, as required under law - Thus, the State to take appropriate action, to appoint the next person - Persons with Disabilities (Equal

¶15

F Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Rules, 1996.

¶16

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 12856

¶17

of2017.

¶18

From the final Judgment and Order dated 02.04.2013 passed by

¶19

G the High Court of Gauhati, Itanagar Permanent Bench in Writ Appeal No.06 (AP) 2012. -

¶20

Sanjay Parikh, Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Uday Manaktala, Rajan Mani, Advs. for the Appellant.

¶21

H

¶22

524

¶23

RIMA TAIPODIA v. ARUNACHAL PRADESH PUBLIC · 525 SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS.

¶24

GinnyuJ.Raotray.Ms.KanchimKaur Dhodi,Ms.Bhawna Pal, Ms.Meenakshi Lekhi, HarishPandey,AnilShrivastav,Advs.for the Respondents.	A
The Judgmentofthe Courtwasdeliveredby
KURIAN, J.1.Leave granted.	B
2.The appellantisbefore this Court, aggrievedbytheorderdated 02.04.2013 passedbytheHig~Court ofGauhatiinWritAppealNo.06 of2012. The appellanthasbeendirectedbytheHighCourttoappear before the State Medical Boardtohaveanassessmentofhis disability, for the Group-B post,inwhichhesought appointment. 3.The requirementwasminimum40%disability.That disabilityis tobeverified underthePersonswithDisabilities (Equal Opportunities, ProtectionofRightsandFullParticipation)Rules,1996.Rules4and5 readasfollows:-	c
"4. Authoritiestogive Disability Certificate:- (l)A Disability Certificate shallbeissuedbya Medical Boarddulyconstitutedby the Centralandthe State Government.	D
(2) The State Governmentmayconstitute a Medical Board consistingofat.least threemembersoutofwhichat'leastone shallbea specialistintheparticular fieldforassessing locomotor/ Visual includinglowvision/hearingandspeech disability,mental retardationandleprosy cured,asthecasemaybe.	E
5.(I)The Medical Board shall, afterdueexamination,givea permanent Disability Certificate.incasesofsuch permanent disabilitieswheretherearenochancesofvariationinthe degree · ofdisability.	F
(2) The Medical Board shall indicate the periodofvalidityinthe certificate,.incases·wherethereisanychanceofvariationinthe degreeofdisability.
{3)NorefusalofDisability Certificate shallbemadeunlessan opportunityisgiventotheapplicantofbeing heard.	G
(4)Onrepresentationbythe applicant, the MedicalBoardmay reviewitsdecisionhavingregardtoallthefactsandcircumstances ofthe caseandpass·suchorderinthe matterasit thinks fit."

H

[2017] 9 S.C.R.

526

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶29

A 4. It is not in dispute that the appellant has never been examined by the State Medical Board. The certificates, based on which the appellant was appointed, were admittedly not issued by the State Medical Board. Apparently, it is in this regard that the High Court directed the appellant to appear before the State Medical Board.

¶30

B 5. On 26.04.2017, having regard to the submission that he would appear before the State Medical Board, without prejudice to his contentions, this Court passed the following order :-

¶31

"The petitioner has volunteered to appear before the State Medical Board in order to clear all the doubts. We direct the Arunanchal c Pradesh State Disability Board to examine the petitioner.

¶32

Needless to say that the Board should have a qualified Orthopedician. We direct the petitioner to appear before the Board in the last week of June, 2017. The exact date on which he has to appear will be intimated to him by the Board.

¶33

D It is made clear that this is without prejudice to the contentions raised by the petitioner in this Special Leave Petition.

¶34

List on 21.07.2017.

¶35

E

¶36

The Board will send its report to this Court before the next date of hearing."

¶37

Accordingly, the State Medical Board has subjected the appellant to the required examination and the disability has been assessed and the appellant is found to have a total disability of only 3 3 .9%. The assessment made by the State Medical Board reads as follows :-

¶38

F

¶39

"Medical Board in respect of Mr.Rima Taipodia

¶40

In reference to Supreme Court, Dated 26.04.2017 and in compliance with Chief Medical Superintendent, Torno Riba State Hospital, Naharlagun order No. ASH/MLC-1383/ 20 I I/pt-1-83844, dated Naharlagun the I 8'h May, 2017 to ascertain the degree G of Disability of Mr. Rima Taipodia on 30.05.2017 at I 0.00 AM in the State Standing Medical Board Room of Torno Riba State Hospital, Naharlagun.

¶41

On examination Shri Rima Taipodia has got within normal range of vital status but has suffered from Volksman Jschem;c

H

527

;\ ! ! 1 '

RIMA TAIPODIA v. ARUNACHAL PRADESH PUBLIC·. SERVICE.COMMISSION & ORS. [KURIAN, J.J

¶46

Contractured of Left Hand following fractured of Both Bone A Forearm during childhood. So, the disability·components ofCpper extremely read as : ·

¶47

I.	ARM COMPONENT	I.Rangeofmovement {Elbow&Wrist)·	5.9%
		2.MuscleStrength (Elbow&Wrist)	.
		3.Co-ordinated Activities .	9%
2.	HAND COMPONENT	l.Prehension .	4%
	.	2.Sensation	3%
		3.Strength	7%
., .).	Additional Weightage·	1.Deformity	1%
		2.Contructures .	!%
		3.Cosmeticsappearance	1%
	.	4.AbnormalMobility	2%
TOT	ALDlSABlLITY	%	33.9%

B

c

D

E

Therefore, the Standing Medical board certify that Mr. Rima Taipodia has got Disability of 33.9% (Thirty Three Point Nine) his left upper Extremely (Hand)."

¶53

Mr. San jay Parikh, learned counsel, has vehemently contended that at the time of the appellant securing the employment based on ct::rtificate issued in 2009, the disability was found to be 50% and according to the learned counsel, going by the. nature of disability, the situation today has improved and thus, the disability is presently below 40%, We find it difficult to appreciate this contention.

¶54

F

¶55

G

¶56

Under the Rules, it is required to be ce1tified that either a person

¶57

is suffering from permanent disability where there are no chances of variation in the degree of disability and ifther!) is any chance of variation in the degree of disability, it should be indicated in the Certificate that the

H

528

[2017] 9 S.C.R.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶62

A . Certificate is for a particular period of validity.In the case ofthe appellant, .! the certificate relied on by him is not time bound and so, there are no chances of variation)n the degree of.disability, meanmg thereby,' it is · meant to be a permanent disabflity. If the State Medical Board has assessed the disability to be below 40%, that only means that the appellant B did not have 40% disability, as required under law. Thus, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶63

Now that the appellant has been subjected to examination by the State Medical Board, it is not necessary to subject him to examination by another medical board unless the appellant seeks a review thereof.

¶64

c 10. Now that the appellant has been found to be of disability below the required percentage, it is for the respondent-State to take appropriate action. Ms, Meenakshi Lekhi, learned counsel appearing for R~spondent No.3, submits that Respondent No. 3, whose certificate shows to be having 75% permanent disability, is the person next to be appointed. The State is directed to take immediate action, in accordancewith Jaw ..

¶65

D

¶66

We make it clear that in case Respondent No. 3 is the one who is to replace the appellant in the category of persons of disability, steps will be taken forthwith. ·

No costs.

E

Nidhi Jain

Appeal dismissed.

Rima Taipodia v. Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rima Taipodia v. Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India and Another versus Raj Kumar Jha and Others

Ramesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. versus State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

A.P. Showkath Ali & Ors. versus State of Kerala & Ors.

Damini and Another versus Managing Director, Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Another

K. R. Babu versus State of Kerala & Ors.

Santosh S/O Dwarkadas Fafat versus the State of Maharashtra