Karnataka High Court
Smt Patil Savtiha Kalagonda vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 July, 2022
Bench: G.Narendar, P.N.Desai
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI
WRIT PETITION NO.173/2022 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SMT PATIL SAVITHA KALAGONDA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
D/O KALAGONDA,
R/O ITTANGIHAL POST AND TALUK,
BIJAPUR DISTRICT - 586104.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI K.K.VASANTH, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF
COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
2ND FLOOR,
DTE BUILDING,
PALACE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001.
2
3. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER/
COMMISSIONER,
KARNATAKA EDUCATION AUTHORITY,
18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU-560055.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SHILPA S.GOGI, HCGP FOR R1,
SRI N.K.RAMESH, ADV. FOR R2 & R3.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 15.09.2020 IN APPLICATION NO.8732/2016
PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
AT BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR "PRELIMINARY
HEARING 'B' GROUP" THIS DAY, G.NARENDAR J, MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. K.K. Vasanth and the learned High Court Government Pleader on behalf of the first respondent and Sri N.K. Ramesh on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3.
2. The necessary facts, bereft of details, for the disposal of the writ petition are as under:-
That the petitioner is an M.Sc. graduate (Chemistry) from Dr. C.V. Raman University, Bilaspur. That the 3 petitioner has also successfully completed the State Eligibility Test, which is one of the requirements to aspire for the post of Lecturer/Professorship. That the petitioner has also been issued a medical certificate by the Medical Board of the District Hospital, Bijapur which certified her visual disability at 55% and further certifying the medical condition as a progressive one without scope for improvement. That the medical test was conducted by the Ophthalmic Surgeon, District Hospital, Bijapur.
3. The third respondent issued a notification dated 22.01.2015 inviting applications for the post of Assistant Professors in Government First Grade Colleges and inviting in all application for 1298 posts spread over various subjects including Chemistry. The last date for filing of application was 28.02.2015 and other qualifying criteria were also stipulated therein, including the minimum and maximum age, minimum qualifying marks and percentage of disability for persons who are physically and visually differently abled. The percentage of disability for persons 4 who are visually disabled, was fixed at 40% and more. That two posts have been notified as reserved for specially abled persons hailing from Category-I caste and Category- III-B caste and the post reserved in favour of Category-III- B applicants is specifically reserved for persons with visual disability.
4. In response to the said notification, the petitioner had filed an application with the 3rd respondent on 26.02.2015 for the post of Assistant Professor in Chemistry subject and specifically against the post reserved for candidates hailing from Category-III-B Group and suffering from visual disability. The application was accompanied by the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, District Hospital, Bijapur dated 17.04.2012. That all the specially abled applicants with visual disability and who had applied against the reserved posts were referred to Minto Ophthalmic, Hospital, Bengaluru for re-examination and assessment of actual percentage of disability suffered by the candidates. That after completion of the test, the 5 respondents No.2 and 3 without any further communication or intimation or notice deleted the name of the petitioner from the list of eligibility candidates. That the petitioner approached the 3rd respondent seeking clarifications regarding the deletion. The effort not having elicited any response, she once again approached the Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, Bengaluru requesting for a disability certificate and the Medical Board of the Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, Bengaluru examined the petitioner and certified the visual disability at 75%.
5. The petitioner armed with the said certificate, once again approached the 3rd respondent and requested that she be provided with one more opportunity to undergo the medical test to affirm the actual extent of visual disability and in this direction made a representation on 19.08.2016 enclosing the certificate issued by the Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, Bengaluru dated 17.08.2016 and the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board of the District Hospital, Bijapur of 2016. The representation did 6 not elicit any response. Aggrieved, she approached the Hon'ble Tribunal and the Hon'ble KSAT by an interim order dated 14.09.2016 directed the 3rd respondent to keep vacant one post of Assistant Professor in Chemistry in Category-III-B (visually disabled Category). The respondents were notified and the respondents though notified, did not choose to file any reply or statement of objections. That the Hon'ble Tribunal taking note of the absence of the counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3, directed the 2nd respondent to be personally present and the order was dispatched on 30.03.2020 and 12.06.2020. Despite being duly served, the 3rd respondent did not put in an appearance. That on account of the prevailing pandemic, the application was taken up for hearing through virtual mode. The counsels for the respondents were heard and taking note of the medical/disability certificate dated 14.07.2016 the application came to be rejected.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that firstly the Tribunal erred in not noticing that 7 the applicant/petitioner herein was not represented during the hearings and that the counsel had inadvertently lost track of the dates and on account of the pandemic was unable to ascertain the date and by the time he could secure the dates, the application was taken up and dismissed. That the medical records had been filed into Court by the 3rd respondent without furnishing a copy to the petitioner and that the same has been taken into consideration behind the back of the applicant and orders are passed. That the medical certificate produced by the 3rd respondent would show that the disability is recorded at 20%.
7. The learned counsel would object to the disability certificate of the Minto Hospital and would submit that the medical test and evaluation of the percentage of disability was carried out by house surgeons/interns and not by the Medical Board. That all is not well with the percentage recorded in the certificate itself. He would submit that the applicant and others were referred to the Minto Hospital for 8 evaluation of disability on 13.07.2016, but the medical records maintained by the hospital would show that the tests have been carried out on 12.07.2016.
8. Stressing upon the same, the learned counsel would contend that the results of the medical tests are pre- determined and do not reflect the real nature and extent of disability suffered by the petitioner. In fact, this contention was raised at the earliest point of time and when the same was put to the learned High Court Government Pleader and the learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3, they fairly admitted the discrepancy and when disability certificates issued by the Medical Board, District Hospital, Bijapur and Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, Bengaluru were put to them, learned counsels fairly submitted that the petitioner may be sent for re-examination. In fact, the said documents were summoned and produced by the learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 and on perusal, it was seen that the examination is said to have been done on 12.07.2016 but the consolidated statement prepared by the 9 hospital authorities in respect of all the candidates and forwarded to 2nd respondent is said to have been forwarded on 12.07.2016 i.e. one day prior to the test were carried out.
9. This prompted the Bench to suggest for re- examination to which, the learned counsels readily agreed. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Medical Board on 06.06.2022 at 11:00 a.m. and the Medical Superintendent, Minto Hospitals was requested to carry out the test and submit a report in a sealed cover by 07.06.2022. In compliance with the direction, the Minto Hospital authorities carried out the test and same was submitted before the Court on 07.06.2022 in a sealed cover. Upon opening the sealed cover and perusal of the report, it revealed that the petitioner has been suffering from visual disability of 40% (low vision). The authenticity and the correctness of the findings recorded in the disability certificate are not disputed by the respondents. The fact that a report recording the disabilities suffered by the 10 candidates preceded the actual date of examination of the candidates is not in dispute. There is no explanation as to how the consolidated report of the candidates with visual disability came to be forwarded to respondents No.2 and 3 even prior to examination of the candidates is not forthcoming. In that view, the said document raises a suspicious and we are constrained to doubt the authenticity of the findings recorded therein. In fact, the doubt entertained by this Court is affirmed by the subsequent disability certificate issued by the very same Medical Board of Minto Hospital wherein, the visual disability (low vision) is certified to be 40%. In that view of the matter, the earlier consolidated report dated 12.07.2016 upon which reliance was placed by the respondents No.2 and 3 to delete the name of the petitioner in the list of eligible candidates is vitiated.
10. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is required to be allowed and is accordingly, allowed. The order dated 15.09.2020 passed on application 11 No.8732/2016 by the Hon'ble tribunal is set-aside. The application is allowed. There shall be a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Assistant Professor in Chemistry against the post reserved for Category-III-B (visually disabled candidates).
11. The consideration and consequential action shall be completed within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. In peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fair approach adopted by the respondents, we refrain from imposing cost.
12. Writ petition stands ordered accordingly. The original of the medical certificate submitted to the Court along with covering letter dated 06.06.2022 and the booklet recording the visual disability be retained in the records of the High Court and certified copy be forwarded to the second respondent for needful action.
12
In view of disposal of the petition, pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE CHS CT-HR