Karnataka High Court
Mr Arjun S Ardharoti vs State Of Karnataka on 22 October, 2018
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L.Narayana Swamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY
WRIT PETITION Nos.13427-431/2018 (S-RES)
And
WRIT PETITION Nos. 18111-112/2018 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. Mr. Arjun S. Ardharoti,
S/o. Shamanna Ardharoti,
Age 25 years,
Occ: Selected as Junior Line Man,
CESCOM,
(Now declared as not qualified),
R/at. Kadlimatti Village,
Bagalkot Yaluk,
Bagalkot District - 587 111.
2. Mr. Ramesh S. Totad,
s/o. Sangappa Totad,
Age 26 years,
Occ: Selected as Junior Line Man,
CESCOM,
(Now declared as not qualified),
R/at. Balbatti, Masuti Post,
Muddebihal,
Vijapura District - 586 213.
3. Mr. Kashinath H. Hosamani,
s/o. Hanamanta Hosamani,
Age 26 years,
2
Occ: Selected as Junior Line Man,
CESCOM,
(Now declared as not qualified),
R/at. Plot No. 36, Sector 83,
Navanagar,
Bagalkot District - 587 103.
4. Mr. Chandappa A. Myageri,
s/o. Ayappa Myageri
Age 29 years,
Occ: Selected as Junior Line Man,
CESCOM,
(Now declared as not qualified),
R/at Yerajeri, Muddebihal,
Vijapura District - 586 213.
5. Mr. Sangappa L. Dollin,
s/o. Laxman Dollin,
Age 27 years,
Occ: Selected as Junior Line Man,
CESCOM,
(Now declared as not qualified),
R/at. Kadlimatti Village,
Bagalkot Taluk,
Bagalkot District - 587 111.
6. Mr. Hanamantappa G. Doddannavar,
s/o. Gundappa Doddannavar,
Age 38 years,
Occ: Selected as Junior Line Man,
CESCOM,
(Now declared as not qualified),
R/at. Hole Masuti Post, Muddebihal,
Vijapura District - 586 213.
7. Mr. Basavaraj S. Handral,
s/o. Sharanabasava Handral,
3
Age 38 years,
Occ: Selected as Junior Line Man,
CESCOM,
(Now declared as not qualified),
R/at. Yarazari Post, Muddebihal,
Vijapura
District - 586 213.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAVIPRAKASH TIPPANNA AVIN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
Department of Energy,
Vidhana Soudha, Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
Represented by its Principal Secretary.
2. Karnataka Power Transmission
Corporation Limited,
Kaveri Bhavan,
Bengaluru - 560 009.
Represented by its Managing Director.
3. Chamundeswari Electricity Supply
Corporation Limited,
Corporation Office :
No.29, Vijayanagar 2nd stage,
Hinkal, Mysuru - 570 017.
Represented by its Managing Director.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. E.S. INDIRESH, AGA FOR R-1,
SRI. AJITH A. SHETTY, ADV. FOR R-2 AND
SRI. LAKSHMI KANTH K.B., ADV. FOR R-3.)
4
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS, QUASH THE
IMPUGNED DECISION DTD. 26.02.2018 AS PER
ANNEXURE-J AND DIRECT RESPONDENT NO.3 TO
CONDUCT MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF PETITIONERS
FROM DIRECTOR OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, ANANDA RAO CIRCLE,
BENGALURU - 09, ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING IN `B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners claim for selection under the disabilities quota came to be rejected, against which they made representations. The said representations came to be rejected by issuing an endorsement - Annexure-J dated 26.02.2018 which is impugned herein. Petitioners' prayer is for quashing the same and they have sought for a direction to respondent No.3 to conduct their medical examination from Director of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Karnataka, Ananda Rao Circle, Bangalore - 09. 5
2. Facts leading to the case are that, respondent No.2 - Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, published employment notification to fill up vacant posts of Junior Lineman. That petitioners had applied for the posts of Junior Lineman and sought consideration of their case under the Physical Handicap quota. In order to claim the said reservation, they have produced medical certificate issued by the District Level Disability Medical Board. On consideration of the said medical certificate, petitioners were selected. Thereafter, petitioners were called for medical examination and they attended the same and the names of petitioners were not published by respondent No.3. The impugned action of the respondent in not considering the petitioners' case is contrary to the provisions of `The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995' (herein after referred to as the `Act' for short) , and it 6 is ultra vires of the provisions of the Constitution. It is submitted that when the special Act enables the disabled persons to be selected under the reservation quota for physically handicapped persons and when certificate is obtained from the competent authority to the said effect, the impugned action of the respondents is contrary to the said Act. If at all, it is found that petitioners are not qualified since they do not come under the definition of the provision for the purpose of disability, unless and until the certificate issued is withdrawn or revoked, they cannot be deprived of their appointment. Once the certificate is issued by the competent authority under particular provision for the purpose of reservation, that has to be accepted for all purposes. There is no provision for revocation under the Act. Under these circumstances, the impugned action of the respondents is violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. 7
3. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 supports the impugned action and submits that the certificates produced by the petitioners for claiming reservation under the disabilities quota is not obtained from All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Manasa Gangothri, Mysore, which is an autonomous body under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 further submits, certificates produced by the petitioners have been forwarded to All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Manasa Gangothri, Mysore. In turn they have issued a certificate stating that the petitioners are not suffering from any disability for the purpose of claiming reservation under the quota for disabled persons. Relying on the same, this endorsement has been issued. Hence, there is no violation on the part of respondents.
8
4. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.
5. The appropriate Government has to constitute a body for the purpose of issuance of disability certificate. As per Section 2(ii), in relation to a State Government or any establishment wholly or substantially financed by that Government or any local authority, other than a Cantonment Board, the State Government. In the instant cases, respondents 2 and 3 are wholly undertakings of the State Government. Petitioners claim their case for consideration under `hearing impairment'. Section 2(l) of the Act states, "hearing impairment" means loss of sixty decibels or more in the better ear in the conversational range of frequencies. Petitioners obtained certificates from the District Level Disability Medical Board consisting of three members headed by the Chairman who is a District Surgeon, One Senior Specialist and Consultant 9 ENT Specialist at District Hospitals and after audiogram examination of petitioners, the said Surgeon issued the disability certificates and they are of the opinion that petitioners suffer disability as provided under sub-clause (l) of Section 2 of the Act. It is true that when such certificates are issued, petitioners do suffer the disability of hearing impairment, but as per the provisions of General Recruitment Rules which is also applicable to respondents 2 and 3, the certificates produced by the petitioners have to be forwarded for verification and to ascertain whether the certificates produced by the petitioners are genuine or not and whether they are entitled for claiming reservation under physically handicapped quota. In the instant case, mainly on the said ground, the certificates produced by these petitioners have been forwarded to All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysore, for verification and for ascertaining the genuineness and they have examined 10 each case of these petitioners and issued certificates. As per Annexures R.1 to R.7 dated 25.04.2017 issued in the cases of : Mr. Arjun S.Ardhrotti (case number 449278) provisional diagnosis is - right ear - hearing sensitivity within normal limits, left ear - mild hearing loss; Mr. Ramesh S. Totad (case number 448303) provisional diagnosis is - bilateral minimal hearing loss; Mr. Kashinath Hosamani (case number 449275) provisional diagnosis is - right ear - mild hearing loss, left ear - hearing sensitivity within normal limits; Mr. Chandappa Myageri (case number 448504) provisional diagnosis is - bilateral hearing sensitivity within normal limits; Mr. Sangappa L. Dollina (case number 448972) provisional diagnosis is - bilateral hearing sensitivity within normal limits; Mr. Hanamantappa Doddannavar (case number 449084) provisional diagnosis is - bilateral hearing sensitivity within normal limits; Mr. Basavaraj S. Handral (case number 449083) provisional diagnosis is - bilateral hearing 11 sensitivity within normal limits, these certificates have been issued after conducting several tests by All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysore, and the question would be, whether it would be appropriate to rely on the certificates obtained by the petitioners from District Level Disability Medical Board.
6. All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysore, is an autonomous institute established by the Central Government and after examination of petitioners, it has submitted report stating that petitioner Nos.1 and 3 are having mild hearing loss of one percent only and petitioner Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are not having hearing loss and the test conducted by All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysore and the District Medical Officer are in divergence and there is huge difference between the two. Hence, direction for second opinion is unwarranted and the respondent No.3 has rightly disqualified the petitioners based on 12 the report submitted by All India Institute of Speech and Hearing. Under these circumstances, endorsement - Annexure `J' dated 26.02.2018 issued by respondent No.3 is just and proper.
7. The submission of the petitioners that unless and until certificate issued by the District Level Disabiity Medical Board is withdrawn or revoked, they cannot be deprived of their appointment and once the certificate is issued by the competent authority under this provision for the purpose of reservation, that has to be accepted for all purposes and there is no provision for revocation under the Act is unacceptable.
8.Hence, I do not find any merit in the writ petitions.
For the reasons aforesaid, writ petitions are rejected.
13
In view of disposal of the main matter, I.A.2/2018 does not survive for consideration and is accordingly rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE Mgn/-