Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Gauhati High Court

Parvez Naz Ali vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors on 9 January, 2026

Author: Devashis Baruah

Bench: Devashis Baruah

                                                                        Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010004862026




                                                                 undefined

                        THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                            Case No. : WP(C)/218/2026

         PARVEZ NAZ ALI
         S/O ABED ALI, R/O VILL.- ISWAR JHARI PT- II, P.O. MAJERALGA, P.S.
         BONGAIGAON, DIST- BONGAIGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 783388.



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
         REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
         DISPUR, GHY- 06.

         2:THE STATE LEVEL RECRUITMENT COMMISSION FOR CLASS- III POSTS
         ASSAM ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF COLLEGE
          JAWAHARNAGAR
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
          KHANAPARA
          GUWAHATI.

         3:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
          CO-OPERATION DEPARTMENT
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI -06.

         4:THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
         ASSAM
          KHANAPARA
          GHY- 22.

         5:THE MEDICAL BOARD CONSITUTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF MEDICAL
         EXAMINATION/TEST IN RESPECT OF APPOINTMENT
          LOCOMOTORS DISABILITY (PWBD) CATEGORY
          REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
          GAUHATI MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL
                                                                         Page No.# 2/6

            BHANGAGARH
            GUWAHATI- 07.

           6:THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT
            DEPARTMENT OF EMPOWERMENT OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
            GOVT OF INDIA
            NEW DELHI -01.

           7:THE MEDICAL BOARD/MEDICAL AUTHORITY
            CONSTITUTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ISSUING LOCOMOTOR DISABILITY
           IN THE DIST OF BONGAIGAON
            ASSA

       For the Petitioner(s)   : Mr. M.U. Mondal, Advocate

       For the Respondent(s)   : Mr. B. Gogoi, Addl. A.G.
                                 Ms. S. Baruah, CGC
                                 Mr. B. Choudhury, Standing Counsel
                                 Mr. S. K. Talukdar, Standing Counsel




                                BEFORE
                 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

                                     ORDER

Date : 09.01.2026 Issue notice making it returnable on 13.02.2026.

2. Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned Additional Advocate General appears on behalf of the respondent No. 1, 5 and 7; Mr. B. Choudhury, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 2; Ms. S. Baruah, the learned CGC appears on behalf of the respondent No. 6 and Mr. S.K. Talukdar, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and accepts notice.

Page No.# 3/6

3. Extra copies of the writ petition be served upon them during the course of the day.

4. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the rejection of his candidature to the post of Grade-III under Category-I wherein the petitioner applied as a PwBD candidate. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was issued the disability certificate on 14.03.2023 by the certifying authority authorized in terms with Section 57(1) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, (for short, "the Act of 2016") wherein it is duly mentioned that the petitioner has 40% permanent disability in relation to locomotor disability/weakness and mild atrophy both lower limb, mild stammering during talking and weakness in gripping of fist/hand. It is the further case of the petitioner that although in the advertisement dated 30.10.2023 there is no mention that there would be a further medical examination, but the petitioner was informed in the provisional result, was intimated that the petitioner has to undergo medical examination and clearance from the Medical Board constituted for that purpose. It is the further case of the petitioner that in pursuance thereto, the petitioner was intimated vide a communication dated 03.01.2026 that upon assessment being made by the Medical Board, it was found that the petitioner's disability is only to the extent of 10% and as such the petitioner does not fall within Page No.# 4/6 the ambit of the definition of "person with benchmark disability"

as defined in Section 2(r) of the Act of 2016.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the disability certificate so issued to the petitioner is in terms with Section 58 of the Act of 2016 read with Rule 18 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 (for short, "the Rules of 2017"). The learned counsel further submitted that in terms with Section 58(3) of the Act of 2016 as well as Rule 19 of the Rules of 2017, the respondents cannot reassess or review the disability as mentioned in the certificate which has been issued unless and until the disability certificate so issued is cancelled or revoked or modified in accordance with law. The learned counsel further submitted that the decision of the Medical Board so constituted cannot override the disability certificate which has been issued to the petitioner and accordingly the rejection of the petitioner's candidature is apparently in conflict with the provisions of the Act of 2016 and the Rules of 2017.
6. Per contra Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the medical examination is done on the basis of an Office Memorandum of the Government of Assam which mandates that even if a person applies as a candidate in the quota of Page No.# 5/6 persons with benchmark disability but before issuance of the appointment order, there is a necessity for undergoing a medical examination. It is under such circumstances, in the provisional results, the petitioner was asked to undergo medical examination and upon medical examination it was found that the petitioner did not come within the ambit of the definition of "person with benchmark disability".

7. This Court has duly considered the respective submissions and, more particularly, the provisions of Section 58(3) of the Act of 2016 and Rule 19 of the Rules of 2017, which stipulates that the disability certificate so issued by the certifying authority would be valid. It is the prima facie opinion of this Court that without revocation, modification or alteration to the disability certificate by the certifying authority in accordance with the provisions of law, the Respondent Authorities cannot give a go by to the said certificate, more so, when the said certificate has a statutory recognition in terms with Section 58(3) of the Act of 2016. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner herein is entitled to certain interim directions.

8. Accordingly, this Court observes that till the next date, the Respondent Authorities shall not fill up 1 (one) post of Grade-III under Category-I wherein the petitioner applied as a PwBD candidate.

Page No.# 6/6

9. The respondents are directed to bring on record their stand by filing the affidavits on or before 06.02.2026.

10. Liberty given to the petitioner to file reply on or before the next date.

11. List accordingly.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant