Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sapna Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47600
1
WP No.25145/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
WRIT PETITION No. 25145 of 2024
SAPNA LODHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anvesh Shrivastava - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri V.P. Tiwari - Government Advocate for respondents/State.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 16421 of 2024
RITU JAIN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anvesh Shrivastava - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri V.P. Tiwari - Government Advocate for respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 21210 of 2024
RENU SAHU
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anvesh Shrivastava - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri V.P. Tiwari - Government Advocate for respondents/State.
_____________________________________________________________________________
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47600
2
WP No.25145/2024
ORDER
(Reserved on 17.09.2025) (Pronounced on: 25/09/2025) Since these petitions have been filed on identical facts and challenge identical orders passed by the respondents, therefore, they are being heard together and are being decided by this common order.
2. The petitioners have challenged the orders of termination in these petitions which have been issued on the ground that the disability certificates submitted by the petitioners showing their benchmark disability to the tune of more than 40% at the time of appointment, have been found to be obtained fraudulently as the re-verification of disability status of these petitioners does not indicate that much quantum or extent of disability and their disability either falls short of the 40% disability so as to entitle them for being granted the benefit of reservation as per the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 as these petitioners have been appointed against reserved posts for such disabled persons/persons with disabilities (PwD), or is temporary in nature.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners while pressing the case of the petitioners has vehemently argued that the petitioners were appointed in the respondent department on various posts against PwD reserved vacancies. They had applied as per the medical certificates issued by the District NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47600 3 WP No.25145/2024 Medical Board of the concerned district and this was the sole requirement as per the advertisement Annexure P-1. By making the petitioners appear before another Medical Board to reassess their disability status, the respondents have changed the rules of the game after start of game and it amounts to harassment and oppression of the petitioners. In other words, it has been vehemently argued that whatever disability certificates are produced by the candidates at the time of initial appointment, the same have to be accepted by the authorities and they are not under authority to re-verify the disability certificates or status.
4. To bring home this point, heavy reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No.4194 of 2024 (Parimal Kumar vs. State of Jharkhand) whereby in paragraph 52 thereof, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that eligibility criteria and essential qualifications of candidates seeking recruitment cannot be altered after the recruitment process has begun and, therefore, the act of the respondents in trying to re-verify the disability status of the petitioners amounts to changing rules of the game after start of the game. It was vehemently argued that the coordinate Bench of this Court in WP No.15628 of 2017 (Swechchha Awasthi vs. State of M.P. and others) has heavily deprecated this practice of subjecting the candidates selected under PwD category to be subjected to repeated medical and disability examinations NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47600 4 WP No.25145/2024 and it is argued that the same amounts to defeating the provisions of the Act of 2016 which should not be permitted by this Court and the impugned termination orders have to be quashed.
5. Per contra, it is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the State that it is common knowledge that in various districts of the State of Madhya Pradesh, a racket was going on in the matter of issuance of fraudulent disability certificates and various cases were detected wherein the candidates were selected under hearing impaired category without any hearing impairment, under orthopedics disabled category without any orthopedic disablement, and so on. These persons did not suffer from any disability at all but managed to procure disability certificates and managed to get appointed against PwD reservation. Therefore, it is only to ensure and safeguard the rights of actual PwD category persons who are suffering with disability, that the State has decided to carry out re-verification of all disability certificates issued in the State. If the petitioners are indeed disabled persons then they should not have any objection to be subjected to re-verification of disability status. Even otherwise, if a person is having a 10 to 15 years old disability certificate, he should not be shy of subjecting himself to disability status at the time of appointment, as the status of disability may change over time, and is not a fixed status like caste status that never changes.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47600 5 WP No.25145/2024
6. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, firstly, the legal argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is taken up. The petitioners have been appointed under PwD category and it is not the case that some bribe was demanded from them or the Medical Board threatened that they would be held disqualified if they do not bow to the demand of bribe, as was the case decided by coordinate Bench in WP No.15628 of 2017.
7. It is common knowledge in the State of Madhya Pradesh that in various districts of Madhya Pradesh, disability certificates have been issued to various persons who did not suffer from any disability at all. Though the maximum number of such instances were reported from Morena district, but there were such instances in all the districts in Madhya Pradesh and various criminal prosecutions have also been instituted against various persons in the matter.
8. In such circumstances, if the State Government wanted to safeguard the interest of actual disabled persons, then the attempt of the State Government to weed out those persons who unscrupulously entered employment through fraudulently obtained PwD certificates, cannot be stated to be an oppressive or harassment tactics of the State. In fact, it is a tactics to do complete justice and to bring about social justice by attempting to give the benefit to actual PwD persons who have been left NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47600 6 WP No.25145/2024 out and unscrupulous persons having no disability or less than 40% disability having received the benefits.
9. The coordinate Single Benches of this Court at Gwalior where in the nearby districts such frauds were most rampant, have rejected the identically placed writ petitions, W.P. No.15133 of 2023 was rejected by coordinate Bench of this Court at Gwalior in the following manner:-
"5. This is a case where petitioner is taking exception to order dated 13.06.2023 which has been issued by Commissioner, Public Instructions and addressed to District Education Officers of all Districts falling under State of Madhya Pradesh. It is common knowledge that there is some dispute in respect of disability certificates obtained by some candidates who otherwise were medically fit. Therefore, enquiry is in the interest of justice and specially in the interest of those candidates who are really suffering from any disability. Therefore, it is all the more required that State Government/ Commissioner, Public Instructions should conduct a thorough enquiry in respect of all candidates who obtained employment through disability certificate and who are having doubtful integrity/certificates. This order is in the interest of justice and for ensuring fairness in the selection process. No interference can be caused. Rather authorities are directed to conduct free, fair and impartial enquiry/investigation in the matter and if require, then help of police authorities may also be obtained."
10. In similar fashion, W.P. No.29678 of 2023 was also rejected by Gwalior Bench of this Court by holding that there was a specific condition in the appointment order that the PwD candidates would be required to appear before the Medical Board after appointment and after reporting for joining before the concerned District Education Officer and once there is a mandatory condition in the appointment order, the act of the State in NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47600 7 WP No.25145/2024 subjecting the candidate to fresh medical test cannot be said to be illegal.
11. The coordinate Bench in W.P. No.29678 of 2023 held as under:-
"Both the parties heard and perused the entire relevant documents with due care.
Order dated 10.08.2023 (Annexure P/4) is the appointment order of the petitioner. In the appointment order of petitioner, there one of the conditions is reproduced herein:-
"11. संबंिधत अ यथ क िनयु इस शत के साथ क जाती है क वह जला िश ा अिधकार कायालय म G..
िनधा रत समयाविध म उप थत होकर जला िश ा
अिधकार ारा िनधा रत थानीय मे डकल बोड के सम
उप थत होगा। मे डकल बोड ारा यह मा णत करने पर
क संबंिधत अ यथ 40 ितशत या अिधक
थायी द यागता रखता है , उसक िनयु मा य कर
अंितम प से शाला म कायभार हण करवाया जाएगा
अ यथा यह आदे श वमेव िनर त माना जाएगा।"
Therefore, as per Clause 11 of the appointment order (Annexure P/4), respondent No.3 has issued a letter Annexure P/5 to the Civil Surgeon, District Hospital Shivpuri regarding re-examination to verify the factum of disability of the newly appointed candidates/teachers who were claimed to be disabled and were appointed under the category "Physically Disabled". Thereafter, the Medical Board of District Hospital Shivpuri conducted the re-examination of petitioner and as per the report of the Medical Board petitioner's disability percentage was to be less than 40% (Annexure R/1). Accordingly, on the basis of the aforesaid report of medical re-examination by the Medical Board, on finding the disability percentage of petitioner being below 40% and as per the terms and conditions of the appointment order of the petitioner, services of petitioner were terminated by respondent No.3 vide impugned order dated 13.09.2023 (Annexure P/1).
Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the petitioner himself produced the disability certificate (Annexure P/6) which was also conducted by the same Board. But, from perusal of the Annexure R/1, it appears that the certificate Annexure R/1 has been issued by the duly constituted Medical Board comprising a duly appointed NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47600 8 WP No.25145/2024 Chairman and two members of the District Medical Board, but the certificate Annexure P/6 was issued by the doctors who are not the members of the District Medical Board. It also contended by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner is ready to appear before the Medical Board in Higher Medical Center, for re-examination to verify the factum of his disability. But, in the appointment order of petitioner Annexure P/4, there is no provision regarding such type of medical examination, therefore, there is no force in the contention made by the counsel for petitioner. There is no reason to disbelieve the medical certificate (Annexure R/1) issued by the District Medical Board which comprised the members who are all Government employees.
In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 13.09.2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.3 is just, proper and in accordance with law and there is no illegality or perversity found in the impugned order.
Resultantly, no case for interference is made out. Hence, the instant petition stands dismissed."
12. The aforesaid order had been challenged by the candidate before the Division Bench and the Division Bench in WA No.363 of 2025 has been pleased to confirm the said order in the following manner:-
"7. This is a case where petitioner is seeking exception to the order dated 13-09-2023 whereby his services were terminated by the respondents on the ground that he is suffering the disability less than 40% therefore, he is not entitled to claim appointment under disabled category on the post of Prathmik Shikshak.
8. During the selection process, petitioner and other persons submitted their disability certificates in which almost 19 persons including petitioner were given the appointment and thereafter, Commissioner, Public Instruction issued direction in relation to verification of the disability certificates. Pursuant to the said direction, District Medical Board, Shivpuri examined the disability of the petitioner and found that petitioner is suffering less than 40% disability thereby not entitled to the appointment.
9. Percentage of disability can only be assessed at the time of selection of a candidate seeking appointment on the NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47600 9 WP No.25145/2024 basis of disability because it can vary and here in the present case, percentage of disability of petitioner has been assessed by the District Medical Board, Shivpuri and this document has its own sanctity which cannot be undermined only on the basis of certificate issued by a welfare authority. Moreso, the certificate produced by the petitioner was issued by an authority but the District Medical Board (comprises three doctors) examined in person, therefore, report cannot be denied or overlooked and no further examination can be ordered.
10. If the appointment order of petitioner is seen then it would be clear that it was the appointment subject to verification of disability certificate which was later on found to be of less percentage of disability. Therefore, condition so stipulated in appointment order itself suggests that it was mandatory. Thus, learned Writ Court rightly passed the order declining interference in the writ petition preferred by the petitioner in the following manner:
"Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the petitioner himself produced the disability certificate (Annexure P/6) which was also conducted by the same Board. But, from perusal of the Annexure R/1, it appears that the certificate Annexure R/1 has been issued by the duly constituted Medical Board comprising a duly appointed Chairman and two members of the District Medical Board, but the certificate Annexure P/6 was issued by the doctors who are not the members of the District Medical Board. It also contended by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner is ready to appear before the Medical Board in Higher Medical Center for re- examination to verify the factum of his disability. But, in the appointment order of petitioner Annexure P/4, there is no provision regarding such type of medical examination, therefore, there is no force in the contention made by the counsel for petitioner. There is no reason to disbelieve the medical certificate (Annexure R/1) issued by the District Medical Board which comprised the members who are all Government employees."
11. So far as non affording the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is concerned, since petitioner appeared before the District Medical Board, Shivpuri and only after his medical examination, opinion was given by the said Board. For giving and continuation of appointment, employer has all NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47600 10 WP No.25145/2024 rights to test the credentials of candidate. Therefore, there no question arises to afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Hon'ble Apex Court time and again held that opportunity of hearing is not an unruly horse and principle of Audi Alteram Partem has its own sanctity and the said principle of natural justice is not to be put in straitjacket formula. Here no such occasion existed to hold that principle of natural justice is violated.
12. Considering the rival submission and the discussion surfaced in the impugned order, it appears that no case for interference is made out. Petitioner failed to establish his case as no adverse inference can be drawn against the medical examination conducted by the District Medical Board, Shivpuri in relation to disability of petitioner. Accordingly, the order passed by learned Writ Court is hereby affirmed and the writ appeal preferred by the petitioner is hereby dismissed."
13. Therefore, in view of the legal position being conclusively decided and issue closed by the Division Bench of this Court, then the respondents having subjected the petitioners to re-medical examination, cannot be declared to be illegal or arbitrary. The same stands confirmed.
14. If the State Government wanted to detect the frauds, then the petitioners if they are crystal clear and clean in their character and having obtained the certificates by lawful means, then they should not be shy of subjecting themselves to re-medical examination.
15. Now this court proceeds to deal with the factual matrix of each case. In WP No.25145 of 2024, the candidate therein had a disability certificate (Annexure P-3) dated 10.01.2015 issued by the District Medical Board showing 40% disability with disability of Pthisis of right eye. When this person was subjected to Medical Board examination in terms of Clause 11 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47600 11 WP No.25145/2024 of the appointment order, then the Medical Board opined that the petitioner is having30% disability, though the earlier diagnosis of disability was upheld while reducing the percentage. The such certificate is Annexure R-4 with the reply. It was stated by counsel for the petitioner that this condition means total blindness in one eye due to shrinking of eye-ball.
16. The Government of India, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment has issued notification dated 04.01.2018 in exercise of powers conferred by Section 56 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 laying down and identifying the disabilities. This notification has been published in the Gazette of India: Extraordinary [Part-II Section 3(ii)] dated 04.01.2018.
17. The aforesaid notification issued by the Government of India has been superseded by the subsequent notification issued in the year 2024.However, since the selection in question was in the year 2022-23, therefore, the notification of 2018 would be relevant.
18. As per the aforesaid notification, eight categories of disability have been laid down. The disability of blindness and low vision is in category-II. The counsel for petitioner had argued that phthisis of eye means absence of eyeball or the eyeball being totally dysfunctional or non-functional. It means complete blindness in one eye.
19. As per clause 19.3 of notification dated 04.01.2018, in case of blindness in one eye and the other eye having vision of 6/6 to 6/18, the NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47600 12 WP No.25145/2024 percentage of impairment laid down is 30%. Therefore, no relief can be granted in WP No.25145 of 2024 because as per the disability mentioned in the certificate, the disability of 30% as mentioned in Annexure R-4 is fully justified.
20. So far as WP No.16421 of 2024 is concerned, in the said case there are three certificates on record. One certificate (Annexure P-4) mentions 40% disability as it is a case of high myopia. One other certificate mentions 50% permanent disability and third certificate mentions 60% permanent disability. The last certificate mentions 40% temporary disability.
21. Since in this particular case there are three types of different disability certificates placed on record and the petitioner has managed to get another disability certificate mentioning 60% permanent disability which is placed on record as Annexure P-18 dated 21.06.2025, therefore, it is clear that these three certificates i.e. Annexures P-3, P-4 and P-18 have been issued at different points of time and mention different extents of disability.
22. Therefore, in this particular case, this Court deems it fit to direct the petitioner to appear before AIIMS, Bhopal for assessment of her actual disability status and the said institute would assess the disability status in the vision and assess percentage of disability as per notification dated 04.01.2018 and not as per notification of 2024.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47600 13 WP No.25145/2024
23. Therefore, WP No.16421 of 2024 is disposed of directing the respondents to get a date fixed with AIIMS, Bhopal and making the petitioner to appear before that Institute. If the petitioner does not cooperate in getting herself medically examined at AIIMS, Bhopal then the respondents would be at liberty to execute the termination order impugned in the present petition. Let this exercise be completed within 60 days. In case AIIMS, Bhopal assesses the ocular disability of petitioner to be 40% or more than the termination order Annexure P-1shall render ineffective and if AIIMS, Bhopal assesses disability to be less than 40% then impugned order Annexure P-1 shall be brought back to life and the petitioner would be relieved immediately.
24. So, far as WP No.21210 of 2024 is concerned, in this case the disability mentioned is D-Kyphoscoliosis. The disability certificate relied by the petitioner is at page 22 of the petition mentions 40% disability and diagnosis of kyphoscoliosis. There is another certificate on record issued by District Medical Board at page 23 of the petition mentioning D- Kyphoscoliosis and mentioned disability to be 40%.
25. However, the respondents have terminated the services of the petitioner as per certificate at page 28 of the petition which mentions that the assessment of 40% disability cannot be accepted because Kyphoscoliosis is only a disfigurement and not a disability and, therefore, NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47600 14 WP No.25145/2024 as per the subsequent certificate at page 28of the petition, the services of the petitioner have been terminated.
26. As per the notification dated 04.01.2018, Kyphoscoliosis is mentioned in paragraph 4 thereof as condition in which one individual's spine has lateral or side to side curvature and it may be 'S' shape or 'C' shape. Para 4.7 further mentions the percentages of disability in case of Kyphoscoliosis and it mentions that permanent physical impairment would be assessed as per degree of deformity. For getting 40% physical impairment 71-80 degree curvature has to be there so as to being it within benchmark disability of 40%. Curvature of up to 40 degree is "nil" physical impairment.
27. In none of the certificates which have been placed on record, the degree of curvature has been mentioned. Therefore, the case of this petitioner also required to be sent to AIIMS, Bhopal for re-assessment of degree of curvature and assessment of benchmark percentage of disability as per notification dated 04.01.2018.
28. Therefore, WP No. 21210 of 2024 is disposed of directing the respondents to get a date fixed with AIIMS, Bhopal and making the petitioner to appear before that Institute. If the petitioner does not cooperate in getting herself medically examined at AIIMS, Bhopal then the respondents would be at liberty to execute the termination order impugned in the present petition. Let this exercise be completed within 60 days. In NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47600 15 WP No.25145/2024 case AIIMS, Bhopal assesses the disability of petitioner to be 40% or more than the termination order shall render ineffective and if AIIMS, Bhopal assesses disability to be less than 40% then impugned termination order shall be brought back to life and the petitioner would be relieved immediately.
29. In the result, while W.P. No.25145/2024 is dismissed, W.P.No.16421/2024 and W.P. No.21210/2024 are disposed of with the directions as contained in paragraphs 23 and 28 above.
(VIVEK JAIN) JUDGE psm