Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pavan Tyagi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 August, 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
WRIT PETITION No. 13766 of 2023
DINAKAR SHUKLA
Versus
STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri MPS Raguvanshi, Senior Advocate with Shri Manish Gurjar- Advocate
for the petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Parashar- GA for the respondents/State.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AND
WRIT PETITION No. 13764 of 2023
MANOJ KUMAR GOUR
Versus
STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri MPS Raguvanshi, Senior Advocate with Shri Manish Gurjar- Advocate
for the petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Parashar- GA for the respondents/State.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AND
WRIT PETITION No. 13765 of 2023
VAIDEHI CHARAN SHARMA
Versus
STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri MPS Raguvanshi, Senior Advocate with Shri Manish Gurjar- Advocate
2
for the petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Parashar- GA for the respondents/State.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AND
WRIT PETITION No. 13768 of 2023
SMT. NEELAM SHARMA
Versus
STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri MPS Raguvanshi, Senior Advocate with Shri Manish Gurjar- Advocate
for the petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Parashar- GA for the respondents/State.
AND
WRIT PETITION No. 13815 of 2023
RAMDEV SHARMA
Versus
STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri MPS Raguvanshi, Senior Advocate with Shri Manish Gurjar- Advocate
for the petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Parashar- GA for the respondents/State.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AND
WRIT PETITION No. 13822 of 2023
KUSHAL KUMAR RAWAT
Versus
STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri MPS Raguvanshi, Senior Advocate with Shri Manish Gurjar- Advocate
for the petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Parashar- GA for the respondents/State.
3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AND
WRIT PETITION No. 13831 of 2023
AMIT RAWAT
Versus
STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri MPS Raguvanshi, Senior Advocate with Shri Manish Gurjar- Advocate
for the petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Parashar- GA for the respondents/State.
AND
WRIT PETITION No. 13834 of 2023
YATENDRA RAWAT
Versus
STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri MPS Raguvanshi, Senior Advocate with Shri Manish Gurjar- Advocate
for the petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Parashar- GA for the respondents/State.
AND
WRIT PETITION No. 13838 of 2023
RAJKUMAR SHARMA
Versus
STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri MPS Raguvanshi, Senior Advocate with Shri Manish Gurjar- Advocate
for the petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Parashar- GA for the respondents/State.
AND
WRIT PETITION No. 13985 of 2023
KU. SOMYA SHARMA
4
Versus
STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri MPS Raguvanshi, Senior Advocate with Shri Manish Gurjar- Advocate
for the petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Parashar- GA for the respondents/State.
AND
WRIT PETITION No. 14174 of 2023
ADITYA SHUKLA
Versus
STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri MPS Raguvanshi, Senior Advocate with Shri Manish Gurjar- Advocate
for the petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Parashar- GA for the respondents/State.
AND
WRIT PETITION No. 14179 of 2023
DHARMENDRA SINGH
Versus
STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Bahirani- Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Parashar- GA for the respondents/State.
AND
WRIT PETITION No. 14586 of 2023
PRADEEP KUMAR TYAGI
Versus
STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri MPS Raguvanshi, Senior Advocate with Shri Manish Gurjar- Advocate
5
for the petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Parashar- GA for the respondents/State.
AND
WRIT PETITION No. 14590 of 2023
RASHMI VERMA
Versus
STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri MPS Raguvanshi, Senior Advocate with Shri Manish Gurjar- Advocate
for the petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Parashar- GA for the respondents/State.
AND
WRIT PETITION No. 14681 of 2023
RAMDAS & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri MPS Raguvanshi, Senior Advocate with Shri Manish Gurjar- Advocate
for the petitionerS.
Shri Yogesh Parashar- GA for the respondents/State.
AND
WRIT PETITION No. 14685 of 2023
MALA VERMA
Versus
STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri MPS Raguvanshi, Senior Advocate with Shri Manish Gurjar- Advocate
for the petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Parashar- GA for the respondents/State.
AND
WRIT PETITION No. 14790 of 2023
6
UPENDRA PATHAK
Versus
STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri MPS Raguvanshi, Senior Advocate with Shri Manish Gurjar- Advocate
for the petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Parashar- GA for the respondents/State.
AND
WRIT PETITION No. 14793 of 2023
LEKHRAJ SINGH DHAKAR
Versus
STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri MPS Raguvanshi, Senior Advocate with Shri Manish Gurjar- Advocate
for the petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Parashar- GA for the respondents/State.
AND
WRIT PETITION No. 14856 of 2023
DEEPU
Versus
STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri G.S.Sharma- Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Parashar- GA for the respondents/State.
AND
WRIT PETITION No. 19403 of 2023
MAHENDRA MEENA
Versus
STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
7
Shri D.P.Singh- Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Parashar- GA for the respondents/State.
AND
WRIT PETITION No. 20839 of 2023
AMIT SHARMA
Versus
STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri MPS Raguvanshi, Senior Advocate with Shri Manish Gurjar- Advocate
for the petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Parashar- GA for the respondents/State.
AND
WRIT PETITION No. 21268 of 2023
DHEERAJ KUMAR SHARMA
Versus
STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Nitin Agrawal- Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Parashar- GA for the respondents/State.
AND
WRIT PETITION No. 28692 of 2023
ROHIT MARAIYA & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri MPS Raguvanshi, Senior Advocate with Shri Manish Gurjar- Advocate
for the petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Parashar- GA for the respondents/State.
AND
WRIT PETITION No. 28904 of 2023
8
SHYAM SUNDAR SHARMA
Versus
STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri MPS Raguvanshi, Senior Advocate with Shri Manish Gurjar- Advocate
for the petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Parashar- GA for the respondents/State.
AND
WRIT PETITION No. 5583 of 2024
SONU GARG & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri MPS Raguvanshi, Senior Advocate with Shri Manish Gurjar- Advocate
for the petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Parashar- GA for the respondents/State.
AND
WRIT PETITION No. 30720 of 2024
PAVAN TYAGI & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri MPS Raguvanshi, Senior Advocate with Shri Manish Gurjar- Advocate
for the petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Parashar- GA for the respondents/State.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESERVED ON. 12/08/2025
ORDER PASSED ON:- 19/08/2025.
ORDER
The petitioners in this batch of writ petitions are aggrieved by the
order passed by the office of Commissioner, Public Instructions, Bhopal,
9
whereby their appointment on the post of Madhyamik/Prathmik Shikshak
has been cancelled on account of their disability certificate being found
forged and invalid. Since, the issue involved in all these petitions is
common, the same are being decided by this common order and for
convenience sake, the facts are taken from W.P. No.13766/2023 filed by Mr.
Dinkar Shukla.
2. The petitioner has invoked Article 226 of Constitution of India, being
aggrieved by the order, dated 14.06.2023, (Annexure P/1) passed by
respondent no.2- Joint Director, Public Instructions, Gwalior, whereby his
appointment on the post of Madhyamik Shikshak (English) has been
cancelled on the ground that his disability certificate has been found to be
forged and fabricated.
3. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that the School
Education Department of Government of Madhya Pradesh intended to fill
up posts of Madhyamik Shikshak in various faculties under Rule 5(4) of
M.P. School Education Service (Teaching Cadre), Service Conditions &
Recruitment Rules, 2018. The Professional Examination Board initiated
recruitment process for conducting eligibility test by issuing advertisement,
dated 30.12.2019. The petitioner submitted his candidature for appointment
on the post of Madhyamik Shikshak in English Subject as a Physically
Handicap (in short ‘PH’) candidate. It be noted here that the petitioner
claims to be 45% Partially Deaf and has relied upon a disability certificate
brought on record as Annexure P/4.
4. The petitioner successfully participated in the eligibility test and vide
order, dated 06.10.2021, (Annexure P/2), he was appointed on the post of
Madhyamik Shikshak (English). He was given posting in Government
Middle School, Bichpuri, District Sheopur. From reading the appointment
order, it is gathered that the appointment order was issued after verification
of documents. However, the appointed candidate was required to produce
the original document with three self-attested copies thereof before the
10
District Education Officer which also included disability certificate for
candidates who are appointed under PH category. The petitioner accordingly
produced the document before DEO, Sheopur, which were found genuine
after verification as is evident from memo, dated 08.10.2021, (Annexure
P/3). The petitioner accordingly joined the service and started working.
5. It is gathered from the reply filed by respondents that some
complaints were received with regard to disability certificates being relied
upon by various candidates in district Ashok Nagar, Chhatarpur, Guna,
Katni, Morena, Sagar, Sheopur, Shivpuri, Sidhi, Singrauli, Ujjain &
Umariya. Taking cognizance of complaints, enquiry into the allegations was
directed. The Collector, Morena, got the petitioner’s disability certificate
verified from Civil Surgeon, District Hospital, Morena, who vide memo,
dated 12.05.2023, informed that the disability certificates of as many as 77
candidates, including the petitioner, has not been found registered in
disability register. Based upon this report, the Collector, Morena, submitted
his report to office of Commissioner, Public Instructions vide memo, dated
15.05.2023, reporting that the disability certificates are forged & fabricated.
Consequently, vide impugned order, dated 14.06.2023, (Annexure P/1) the
petitioner’s appointment has been cancelled having been obtained on the
basis of forged disability certificate.
6. After filing of the writ petition, this Court vide order, dated
26.06.2023, directed the learned AAG & GA to get the disability certificate
verified and submit report within one week. In compliance with the order of
this Court, the respondents constituted a five member committee to again
enquire into the validity of disability certificate, vide order, dated
05.07.2023, (Annexure R/1 in W.P. No.13765/23). The Civil Surgeon of
District Hospital, Morena appeared before the committee alongwith
disability register for the period from 09.11.2016 to 31.03.2021. He stated
before the committee that the petitioner’s disability certificate is not found
registered in the disability register during the aforesaid period. He also
stated that the disability certificate of petitioner is shown issued at serial
11
no.4426 on 03.10.2018, however, the certificate is not found registered on
aforesaid serial number on the date given on certificate. It is also stated by
him that on 03.10.2018, the certificate from serial no.2145 to 2189 only
were registered. The statement of Civil Surgeon is placed on record as
Annexure R/1 alongwith reply filed by respondents. The committee
submitted its report on 30.06.2021 (Annexure R/1) reiterating the earlier
finding. Similarly, certificates of other candidates in district Morena, were
also verified as is evident from the report, dated 19.07.2023, (Annexure
R/1) filed in W.P. No.13765/23.
7. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
impugned order has been passed by respondent no.2 without complying
with basic requirement of principles of natural justice. In support of this
submission, he placed reliance upon Division Bench judgment of this Court
in the case of Narendra Kumar Patel vs. Professional Examination Board
reported in 2014 SCC Online MP 7648, Single Bench judgment in the case
of Jitendra Kumar Chandrawat vs. State of M.P. reported in 2016 SCC
Online MP 2349 and in the case of Rakesh Manjhi vs. State of M.P. passed
in W.P. No.11198/2019. He submitted that the petitioner’s appointment has
been cancelled only on the ground that the disability certificate is not found
registered in disability register of District Hospital. As per his submission,
this could only be an irregularity which would not invalidate the certificate.
He also submitted that the petitioner’s certificate is also available on online
portal of the department. He submitted that the petitioner’s disability
certificate has been issued by competent authority and has been signed by
all the members of Medical Board, however, without examining this
important fact, the impugned order has been passed. He further submitted
that the disability certificate has been held to be forged only because it is not
found registered in the disability register but no enquiry in this regard is
conducted by respondent. He also submitted that the disability certificate
was already verified twice before joining on the post and, therefore,
cancellation of the same only because it is not found registered in disability
12
register, is ex-facie illegal and arbitrary.
8. The petitioner filed a rejoinder bringing on record documents to show
that there are certain candidates whose disability certificates were earlier
found forged but later on, the same have been found to be duly registered in
the disability register. The names of such candidates are Manorama Sharma
daughter of Rishikesh Sharma, Smt. Lalita Meena wife of Shri Hem Singh
Meena and Shri Sonu Garg son of Shri Jagdeesh Garg. The certificates of
these candidates have been found to be valid. Shri Sonu Garg is the writ
petitioner in W.P. No.21268/2023. Relying upon the aforesaid documents,
the learned senior counsel submitted that the so called enquiry conducted by
respondents is not reliable and since the carrier of writ petitioners is at stake
and against some of them FIR has been lodged, the enquiry needs to be
done again at a higher level.
9. The learned counsel for petitioner in all connected matters adopts the
arguments of learned senior counsel. In addition, the petitioner’s counsel in
W.P. No.21268/2023 submitted that the petitioner scored 97.6% which was
above the cut-off marks of 93% for UR category. Thus, even if the
petitioner’s certificate is unacceptable, he is entitled to be appointed under
UR category also.
10. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate supported the
impugned action of respondents and submitted that a large number of
certificates were found forged in various districts and, therefore, principles
of natural justice are not attracted. He also submitted that the disability
certificates are not found registered in the disability register which only
shows that the certificates were forged & fabricated. As per his submission,
the registration of certificate in disability register is mandatory. It is his
further submission that since the petitioners were appointed by availing
reservation for PH category, once their certificates are found forged and
unacceptable, the cancellation of their appointment was inevitable. He also
submitted that all the petitioners have given affidavit stating that if any
information/document submitted by them is found incorrect, their
13
appointment is liable to be cancelled. He thus submitted that the petitioner
cannot be considered under unreserved category. He, therefore, prays for
dismissal of all the writ petitions.
11. Considered the arguments of both sides and perused the records.
12. The main thrust of arguments of petitioners’ counsel in this batch of
petition is the violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as no
opportunity was admittedly afforded to petitioners while passing the
impugned orders. In this regard, it is to be seen that large number of
disability certificates have been found to be not registered in disability
registered. The impugned order has been passed holding certificates to be
forged on this ground alone. Therefore, following issues arises for
consideration:
i. whether the respondents are justified in holding certificates to
be forged and invalid because they are not found registered in
disability register?
ii. if yes, whether the petitioners were entitled to get an
opportunity of hearing before passing of impugned orders or
providing opportunity to the petitioners’ would be the useless
formality?
ISSUE NO.i:
13. The Act namely “Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, (in
short ‘Act’) has been enacted to give effect to the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and for matters
connected therewith or incidental thereto. In the matter of issuance of
disability certificate, Section 57 of the Act provides for designation of
certifying authorities while Section 58 thereof provides for procedure for
certification. Section 57 & 58 of Act of 2016 being relevant, are reproduced
hereunder:
“57. Designation of certifying authorities.–(1) The
appropriate Government shall designate persons, having
requisite qualifications and experience, as certifying
authorities, who shall be competent to issue the certificate of
disability.
14
(2) The appropriate Government shall also notify the
jurisdiction within which and the terms and conditions
subject to which, the certifying authority shall perform its
certification functions.
58. Procedure for certification.–(1) Any person with
specified disability, may apply, in such manner as may be
prescribed by the Central Government, to a certifying
authority having jurisdiction, for issuing of a certificate of
disability.
(2) On receipt of an application under sub-section (1), the
certifying authority shall assess the disability of the
concerned person in accordance with relevant guidelines
notified under Section 56, and shall, after such assessment,
as the case may be,–
(a) issue a certificate of disability to such person, in such
form as may be prescribed by the Central Government;
(b) inform him in writing that he has no specified disability.
(3) The certificate of disability issued under this section shall
be valid across the country.”
14. Thus, the disability certificates are issued under Section 58(2) upon
an application made by candidate under Section 58(1) of the Act. Further,
exercising powers under Section 100 of Act, Rules namely “Rights of
Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017, (in short ‘Rules’) have been framed.
Rule 17 & 18 lays down the procedure for issuance of disability certificate.
Since, the certificates in question have been issued prior to 16.10.2024,
when rules where substantially amended, the un-amended Rule 17 & 18 of
Rules would apply in these cases which read as under:
“17. Application for certificate of disability.–(1) Any
person with specified disability may apply in Form IV for a
certificate of disability and submit the application to–
(a) a medical authority or any other notified competent
authority to issue such a certificate in the district of
residence of the applicant as mentioned in the proof of
residence in the application; or
(b) the concerned medical authority in a government
hospital where he may be undergoing or may have
undergone treatment in connection with his disability:
15
Provided that where a person with disability is a minor or
suffering from intellectual disability or any other disability
which renders him unfit or unable to make such an
application himself, the application on his behalf may be
made by his legal guardian or by any organisation
registered under the Act having the minor under its care.
(2) The application shall be accompanied by–
(a) proof of residence;
(b) two recent passport size photographs; and
(c) aadhaar number or aadhaar enrollment number, if any.
Note.–No other proof of residence shall be demanded from
the applicant who has aadhaar or aadhaar enrollment
number.”
“18. Issue of certificate of disability.–(1) On receipt of an
application under Rule 17, the medical authority or any
other notified competent authority shall, verify the
information as provided by the applicant and shall assess
the disability in terms of the relevant guidelines issued by
the Central Government and after satisfying himself that the
applicant is a person with disability, issue a certificate of
disability in his favour in Form V, VI and VII, as the case
may be.
(2) The medical authority shall issue the certificate of
disability within a month from the date of receipt of the
application.
(3) The medical authority shall, after due examination–
(i) issue a permanent certificate of disability in cases where
there are no chances of variation of disability over time in
the degree of disability; or
(ii) issue a certificate of disability indicating the period of
validity, in cases where there is any chance of variation over
time in the degree of disability.
(4) If an applicant is found ineligible for issue of certificate
of disability, the medical authority shall convey the reasons
to him in writing under Form VIII within a period of one
month from the date of receipt of the application.
(5) The State Government and Union territory
Administration shall ensure that the certificate of disability
is granted on online platform from such date as may be
notified by the Central Government.”
16
15. A bare reading of Section 57 & 58 alongwith Rule 17 & 18, makes it
clear that an application for issuance of disability certificate is required to be
submitted by person with disability in the prescribed Form IV. Thereafter,
the medical authority after due examination shall issue either a permanent
certificate or a certificate for particular period in Form V in case of single
disability and in Form VI in case of multiple disability. From the format
No.V, it is seen that at the bottom, name and address of medical authority is
required to be mentioned.
16. From the procedure prescribed, it is gathered that as soon as the
application is made by person with disability, the same is required to be
processed and be placed before the Medical Board. In these cases, none of
the parties have disputed that Medical Board at District Hospital is the
medical authority under Section 57 & 58 of the Act. Further, after
examination of disability, if a certificate is issued, it is required to be so
recorded in the disability register maintained at District Hospital. This has
been specifically held in the enquiry report as also the stand taken in the
return by respondents. The finding in enquiry report and the stand taken by
respondents in return appears to be justified inasmuch as in absence of
registration of certificate in disability register, it is impossible to verify the
authenticity of certificate. Thus, a valid disability certificate issued by
Medical Board should find place in the record maintained by the Hospital
from where the same is issued.
17. It is a settled legal proposition that a thing is required to be done in
the manner prescribed. This has been so held by Apex Court in the case of
State of Jharkhand Vs. Ambay Cement & Anr., reported in (2005)1 SCC
368 wherein the Court held in para 26 as under:
“26.Whenever the statute prescribes that a particular act is
to be done in a particular manner and also lays down that
failure to comply with the said requirement leads to severe
consequences, such requirement would be mandatory. It is
the cardinal rule of interpretation that where a statute
provides that a particular thing should be done, it should be
done in the manner prescribed and not in any other way. It
17is also settled rule of interpretation that where a statute is
penal in character, it must be strictly construed and
followed. Since the requirement, in the instant case, of
obtaining prior permission is mandatory, therefore, non-
compliance with the same must result in cancelling the
concession made in favour of the grantee, the respondent
herein.”
18. It be noted that in none of the writ petition, copy of application
submitted by candidates under Section 58(1) of the Act of 2016 is placed on
record. Further, the fact that the disability certificates are not registered in
disability register goes to show that the prescribed procedure was not
followed while issuing the disability certificates in question.
19. The matter can be examined from another aspect. The certificate
relied upon by petitioner is placed on record as Annexure P/4. It is in the
same Format V. It is issued by Medical Board at Government District
Hospital, Morena (M.P.). The certificate number and the date of issuance are
also printed at the left top of certificate. However, at the bottom, neither the
name nor the designation of examining doctor is mentioned. Further, at the
left top there is a round seal of the District Hospital, Morena, which bears
serial no.4426 and date of 03.10.20218. Meaning thereby, when the serial
number is mentioned in the certificate, it should found place in the disability
register maintained by District Hospital. As per the finding recorded by
committee, the petitioner’s certificate is not found registered at serial
no.4426 on 03.10.2018.
20. The petitioners’ contention is that non-registration of certificate in
disability register is only an irregularity and it would not invalidate the
certificate. This submission is not acceptable inasmuch as the certificate,
being relied upon by petitioner, actually bear serial number mentioned at the
left top of certificate over the round seal of District Hospital. However, as
per the enquiry report, the certificate is not found to have been registered on
the said number. To illustrate, at the left top of certificate, within the seal of
District Hospital, the serial no.4426, dated 03.10.2018, is mentioned,
18
however, as per enquiry report, on 03.10.2018, the certificates from serial
no.2145 to 2189 alone are issued. Infact, in the entire year 2018, the
certificates from serial no.1084 to 2470 were issued. Thus, it is not a case of
mere irregularity of not mentioning the serial number but it is a case of
mentioning incorrect serial number on the certificate. Therefore, the
possibility of certificate being forged cannot be ruled out. The petitioners’
contention that it is only an irregularity, is, therefore, not acceptable.
21. Further, it is seen that the certificate does not bear the name and
designation of examining doctor. During enquiry, one member of Board viz.
Dr. Subhash Agrawal has denied his signature on the petitioner’s disability
certificate.
22. The petitioners’ counsel also made a submission that the disability
certificate of petitioner is also available on official portal of the department
and a Unique Disability ID has also been generated. A copy of UDID is
placed on record at page no.26 of the petition. However, from this
document, it is seen that the UDID is issued on 24.07.2020 whereas the
certificate in question was issued on 03.10.2018. This fact supports the
respondents’ contention that initially the disability certificates were not
issued online but after the Covid-19 Pandemic was over, the certificates are
made available online. Meaning thereby, the disability certificate issued on
03.10.2018 has been subsequently uploaded on portal and UDID is
generated on 24.07.2020. Thus, the petitioner does not get any help from the
fact that the copy of certificate is available online.
23. Thus, it is to be held that a valid disability certificate is required to be
registered in the disability register maintained by the Hospital and its non-
registration creates a serious doubt about its genuineness and authenticity.
For the reasons aforesaid the certificate is invalid and unacceptable.
ISSUE NO. ii:
24. This takes us to the next issue regarding non-compliance with
principles of natural justice which has been heavily pressed into service by
19
petitioners’ counsels.
25. The scope of applicability of doctrine of natural justice has been
considered by Apex Court in the case of Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. CCE
reported in (2015)8 SCC 519, wherein the Court held as under:
“39.We are not concerned with these aspects in the present
case as the issue relates to giving of notice before taking
action. While emphasising that the principles of natural
justice cannot be applied in straitjacket formula, the
aforesaid instances are given. We have highlighted the
jurisprudential basis of adhering to the principles of
natural justice which are grounded on the doctrine of
procedural fairness, accuracy of outcome leading to
general social goals, etc. Nevertheless, there may be
situations wherein for some reason–perhaps because the
evidence against the individual is thought to be utterly
compelling–it is felt that a fair hearing “would make no
difference”–meaning that a hearing would not change
the ultimate conclusion reached by the decision-maker–
then no legal duty to supply a hearing arises. Such an
approach was endorsed by Lord Wilberforce in Malloch v.
Aberdeen Corpn. [(1971) 1 WLR 1578 : (1971) 2 All ER
1278 (HL)] , who said that : (WLR p. 1595 : All ER p.
1294)
“… A breach of procedure … cannot give [rise to] a
remedy in the courts, unless behind it there is something
of substance which has been lost by the failure. The
court does not act in vain.”
Relying on these comments, Brandon L.J. opined in
Cinnamond v. British Airports Authority [(1980) 1 WLR
582 : (1980) 2 All ER 368 (CA)] that : (WLR p. 593 : All
ER p. 377)
“… no one can complain of not being given an
opportunity to make representations if such an
opportunity would have availed him nothing.”
In such situations, fair procedures appear to serve no
purpose since the “right” result can be secured without
according such treatment to the individual.
40. In this behalf, we need to notice one other exception
which has been carved out to the aforesaid principle by the
courts. Even if it is found by the court that there is a
violation of principles of natural justice, the courts have
held that it may not be necessary to strike down the action
and refer the matter back to the authorities to take fresh
20
decision after complying with the procedural requirement
in those cases where non-grant of hearing has not caused
any prejudice to the person against whom the action is
taken. Therefore, every violation of a facet of natural
justice may not lead to the conclusion that the order passed
is always null and void. The validity of the order has to be
decided on the touchstone of “prejudice”. The ultimate test
is always the same viz. the test of prejudice or the test of
fair hearing.”
26. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, if the facts of these
cases are seen, it is gathered that the petitioners have not disputed the
finding that their certificates are not found registered in disability register of
District Hospital. On the contrary, their submission is that its non-
registration is only an irregularity and it would not invalidate their
certificates. Thus, in view of the conclusion reached above that non-
registration of certificate would invalidate the certificate itself, no fruitful
purpose would have been served, even if the petitioners were given
opportunity of hearing.
27. Further, there are large number of disability certificates which have
been found not registered in disability register and are thus declared invalid.
In these circumstances, the rule of audi alteram partem may not be attracted
as has been held by Apex Court in the case of Nidhi Kaim vs. State of M.P.
reported in (2016)7 SCC 615. In the said case, the Apex Court was
considering cancellation of results of 345 and 70 candidates as a result of
which the admissions granted to them in various medical colleges stood
cancelled. These were the students who got admission in medical colleges
after clearing PMT examination conducted by Professional Examination
Board, Bhopal. The argument of violation of principles of natural justice
was made before the Apex Court. Answering the said argument, the Apex
Court held in para 42 as under:
“42. From an analysis of the above decisions, the following
principles emerge:
42.1. Normally, the rule of audi alteram partem must be
scrupulously followed in the cases of the cancellation of the
21examinations of students on the ground that they had
resorted to unfair means (copying) at the examinations.
42.2. But the abovementioned principle is not applicable to
the cases where unfair means were adopted by a relatively
large number of students and also to certain other
situations where either the examination process is vitiated
or for reasons beyond the control of both students and the
examining body, it would be unfair or impracticable to
continue the examination process to insist upon the
compliance with audi alteram partem rule.
42.3. The fact that unfair means were adopted by students
at an examination could be established by circumstantial
evidence.
42.4. The scope of judicial review of the decision of an
examining body is very limited. If there is some reasonable
material before the body to come to the conclusion that
unfair means were adopted by the students on a large scale,
neither such conclusion nor the evidence forming the basis
thereof could be subjected to scrutiny on the principles
governing the assessment of evidence in a criminal court.”
28. Thus, the fact that the disability certificates were not found registered
in Government records, was sufficient for the respondents to reach to a
conclusion that the certificates in question are not genuine. Therefore,
compliance with rule of audi alteram partem was not required particularly
when the number of cases is large enough to make it impracticable.
29. Thus, this Court is of considered opinion that non-grant of
opportunity to the petitioners has not caused any prejudice to them
inasmuch as the petitioners do not dispute that their certificates are not
registered in disability register maintained at Government Hospital. The
petitioners’ contention regarding violation of principles of natural justice is
accordingly rejected.
30. Coming on to the documents filed by petitioner alongwith rejoinder
wherein the certificates of three candidates have been found valid on re-
examination. It is seen that pursuant to the order passed by this Court on
26.06.2023, a five member committee was constituted who re-examined the
certificates of candidates. Upon re-examination, the certificates of these
22
three candidates were found valid. However, the petitioners whose
certificates have been found invalid even upon re-examination by five
member committee, do not get any help from the documents filed alongwith
rejoinder.
31. In W.P. No.21268/2023, the learned counsel for petitioner submitted
that the petitioner has secured 97% marks which is above the cut-off marks
of 93% prescribed for UR category and, therefore, his client is entitled to be
appointed under UR category. The submission so made is considered. It is
seen that the petitioners have submitted an affidavit at the time of
appointment that if any information/ document submitted by them is found
incorrect, their appointment shall be liable to be cancelled. Even otherwise,
the posts in question must have been filled up and the selected person is not
a party in the petition. In view of the aforesaid, the submission made by
petitioner’s counsel is unacceptable.
32. In view of the discussion made above, the impugned orders passed by
respondents do not call for interference by this Court.
33. Since, the respondents have already conducted an enquiry regarding
validity of disability certificates of petitioners, no fruitful purpose would be
served by remitting the matter to the respondents. However, it is also a fact
that in some cases, the certificates have been found valid upon re-
examination. Therefore, liberty is granted to the petitioners to produce
material before the Commissioner, Public Instructions, Bhopal, within three
weeks from today, to show that their certificate is validly issued. If any such
material is produced, the Commissioner or any other competent authority
shall examine the same keeping in view the observations made hereinabove
and pass suitable order. Needless to mention, if the certificate of any of the
petitioner is found valid, consequential benefit be conferred on him.
34. Before parting with these matters, this Court is constrained to observe
about the manner in which the respondents have undertaken the exercise of
verification of documents. From the appointment order, it is seen that the
documents were verified before its issuance. Again, as per the condition in
23
the appointment order, the appointed candidates were required to produce
the documents in original for verification. The verification was accordingly
done and the petitioners were allowed to join their respective posts. The
certificates were found invalid only when the respondents re-verified the
same on receiving complaints. This shows that the documents were not
properly verified twice before the impugned action. This is a serious lapse
as a result of which carrier of number of persons is put to stake. The higher
authorities of the respondent department is, therefore, required to look into
this aspect of the matter and take remedial measures so as to avoid the
complications, as has arises in these cases, in future.
35. With the aforesaid observations, these petitions are disposed off.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
jps/-