Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Fakrudeen Sheriff M M vs Department Of Space on 30 September, 2025
-1-
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No.180/00151/2025
Tuesday this the 30th day of September, 2025
CO RAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Ms.V.RAMA MATHEW, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Fakrudeen Sheriff.M.M.,
S/o.Muhammed Sheriff.M.,
Aged 30 years, 140A South New Street,
Tuticorin, Thoothukudi, Tamilnadu - 628 002. ...Applicant
(By Advocates Mr.P.Deepak, Sr. & Mr.Deepak Raj)
versus
1. Union of India represented by Secretary,
Department of Space (DOS),
India Science Technology & Innovation,
Technology Bhavan, New Mehraul,
New Delhi - 110 016.
2. Secretary,
Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities,
Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment,
Government of India, New Delhi - 110 003.
3. Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (VSSC),
Government of India, Department of Space,
Indian Space Research Organization,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 022
represented by Director.
A S Peethambaran 2025.09.30 12:49:36+05'30'
-2-
4. Senior Administrative Officer,
Recruitment & Review Section,
Vikram Sarabhai Space Center (VSSC),
Government of India, Department of Space,
Indian Space Research Organization,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 022. ...Respondents
(By Advocate Mr.M.N.Manmadan, SCGSC)
The Original Application having been heard on 25 th September
2025, the Tribunal on 30th September 2025 delivered the following :
ORDER
HON'BLE Ms.V.RAMA MATHEW, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER Heard both sides in extenso. Briefly speaking, the grievance of the applicant is against Annexure A-9 order denying him appointment to the post of Library Assistant - A by postponing appointment on administrative reasons and directing to wait until further directions. The 3rd respondent (VSSC) had invited applications through online for various posts including one post of Library Assistant - A under unreserved category from persons with bench mark disability (PWBD) of category A (low vision) with prescribed qualifications. The applicant applied for the said post with supporting claim for disability produced as Annexure A-2 Disability Certificate issued by certifying authority under Right of Persons with Disability Act, 2016. He appeared for the written test and the skill test. In the Annexure A-3 Select List he is No.1 in the A S Peethambaran 2025.09.30 12:49:36+05'30' -3- panel position of Library Assistant - A. The Administrative Officer under the 3rd respondent vide Annexure A-4 dated 03.04.2024 invited him to join as Trainee on short term basis with certain terms and conditions but he expressed his willingness to join as Library Assistant - A at VSSC on regular basis. An offer of appointment was issued vide Annexure A-5 dated 17.01.2025 with a direction to produce physical disability certificate from the competent authority in the prescribed format at the time of joining. On 21.01.2025 the 4th respondent forwarded Annexure A-5 offer of appointment to the applicant with a request to confirm acceptance of the appointment within seven days and directed to report before Chief Medical Officer of VSSC at Thiruvananthapuram for arranging medical examination. He attended the medical examination and subsequently on 22.01.2025 the 4 th respondent directed him to wait when he went for joining. On 27.01.2025 he sent Annexure A-7 notice to the 3 rd respondent acknowledging acceptance of appointment offer and attached documents sought for. He further submitted Annexure A-8 letter on 02.02.2025 to the 4th respondent requesting him to intimate the date of joining duty. Subsequent to this on 11.02.2025 the impugned Annexure A-9 letter postponing the date of joining due to administrative reasons was issued.
A S Peethambaran 2025.09.30 12:49:36+05'30' -4- Against the Annexure A-9 letter the applicant appealed to the 3 rd respondents vide Annexure A-10 dated 18.02.2025 but has not received any response till date.
2. Subsequently vide M.A.No.180/544/2025 the applicant produced documents wherein the 3rd respondent vide letter dated 11.03.2025 seek to verify the truthfulness of Annexure A-12 disability certificate produced by him. The authority had confirmed on 16.04.2025 that the applicant's disability of 40% (low vision) as per Annexure A-12 needs no re-assessment as one year was not elapsed therefrom and hence confirmed his disability of 40% as per records. This is produced as Annexure A-13.
3. In the reply statement, while admitting the facts as above, it is submitted that there is a provision in ISRO to engage empanelled candidates as Trainees on short term engagement, during the pendency of C&A verification considering the critical projects/targets of the department. This provision was introduced by the department 12 years back vide O.M dated 22.03.2013. Candidates have the full right to accept or deny the aforesaid Trainee offer and it is pertinent to state that A S Peethambaran 2025.09.30 12:49:36+05'30' -5- the denial of the aforesaid offer by candidates does not have any bearing on the permanent appointment of candidate subsequent to receipt of C&A verification report. The applicant was offered with short term trainee assignment based on the approval of Director, VSSC vide offer dated 03.04.2024. However, candidate vide email dated 03.06.2024 has intimated his unwillingness to accept the short term trainee assignment due to his Ph.D commitments at Bharathidasan University.
4. Subsequently based on the C&A verification reports received from District Authorities and Department of Space/Intelligence Bureau 3 rd respondent issued Annexure A-5 offer of appointment dated 17.01.2025 to the applicant directing him to report for duty on or before 17.02.2025 after completing medical fitness evaluation by Chief Medical Officer, VSSC. At Clause 1(j) of the offer of appointment, it has been specifically mentioned that the appointment will be subject to his being found medically fit by the VSSC Medical Officer. Subsequently vide letter dated 17.01.2025 of the Senior Administrative Officer, Recruitment & Review Section, VSSC he was directed to report to Chief Medical Officer, VSSC for arranging his medical examination by the VSSC Medical Officer. Accordingly he had reported for medical examination A S Peethambaran 2025.09.30 12:49:36+05'30' -6- at Health Centre of VSSC on 21.01.2025. After his medical evaluation Chief Medical Officer of VSSC issued a medical fitness and disability certificates dated 21.01.2025. The disability of the candidate was assessed by a Medical Board consisting of Chief Medical Officer of VSSC, Physician and an Ophthalmologist who are serving medical officers of VSSC. Medical Board has certified that he was suffering from Keratoconus (both eyes) and the aforesaid condition was progressive and re-assessment was recommended after a period of 12 months. Further, VSSC Medical Board has certified the percentage of his disability as 10%. Chief Medial Officer remarked that the percentage of his disability was 10% against the percentage (40%) mentioned in Annexure A-2 Disability Certificate issued by UDID Card issuing authority, Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India. This is produced as Annexure R-1(C).
5. It is submitted that as per Government of India Notification dated 16.10.2024 amending the RPwD Rules, 2017 it is clearly stated under Rule 18(4) that the 'medical authority' after due examination shall issue a permanent Disability Certificate/UDID card in cases where there are no A S Peethambaran 2025.09.30 12:49:36+05'30' -7- chances of improvement over time in degree of disability or medical authority shall issue a Disability/UDID card indicating the period of validity in cases where there is any chance of improvement over time in the degree of disability. A copy of the notification is produced as Annexure R-1(D).
6. In the case of the applicant as the Medical Board in VSSC has reported the disability percentage as 10% and the variation found in the disability percentage is abnormal ie., 30%, the Appointing Authority has decided to verify the authenticity of the UDID certificate produced by the candidate during the skill test conducted on 18.03.2024. It has been suggested that UDID Medical Authorities might have erred in the medical evaluation carried out for the candidate.
7. Fundamentally, the respondents argues that no person shall be permitted to derive or continue to enjoy any benefit under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 on the basis of a false, incorrect or erroneously issued disability certificate. The benefits and protections under the Act are intended exclusively for genuine and eligible persons with disabilities and any misuse whether by fraud, misrepresentation or A S Peethambaran 2025.09.30 12:49:36+05'30' -8- error must be identified, corrected and acted upon in accordance with law. This is essential to uphold the integrity of the legislative intent and to ensure that the rights of truly deserving individuals are not diluted or compromised. It has also been submitted by the respondents that in view of the Medical Report dated 21.01.2025 issued by the VSSC Medical Board the appointment of the applicant has been postponed as decided by the Appointing Authority and the said decision was informed to him vide Annexure A-9. Further, the 3rd respondent Centre has taken up the matter with District Differently Abled Welfare Officer, Tuticorin vide letter dated 11.03.2025, produced as Annexure R-1(E). In response to the said letter the District Differently Abled Welfare Officer, Tuticorin vide letter dated 04.04.2025 informed VSSC that the person has been advised to appear directly at Government Medical College Hospital, Tuticorin on 17.04.2025 for medical board re-evaluation and after re-assessment the confirmation of disability would be informed. A copy of this letter is produced as Annexure R-1(F). Subsequently vide letter dated 16.04.2025 the District Differently Abled Welfare Officer, Tuticorin informed the applicant vide letter dated 11.04.2025 that he had appeared before the Medical Board on 06.08.2024 and got medical certificate of 40% disability which was authorized by HOD of Ophthalmology, A S Peethambaran 2025.09.30 12:49:36+05'30' -9- Tuticorin Medical College Hospital. As the aforesaid Medical Certificate dated 06.08.2024 confirms the same disability within one year period of time, he claimed that he does not need re-assessment for the same. In view of the same, the District Differently Abled Welfare Officer, Tuticorin confirmed that the person has disability of 40% according to the above records. This communication is produced as Annexure R- 1(G).
8. It has been submitted that the certificate dated 06.08.2024 issued by the Senior Resident, Government Medical College, Tuticorin was not a medical certificate as claimed by the applicant but was only a certificate regarding physical limitation of an examinee to write. The certificate dated 06.08.2024 is produced as Annexure R-1(H) which is required by educational institutions and other organizations to allow candidates with disabilities to avail services of scribe or other privileges for persons with disabilities while writing examinations. The said certificate only documents the physical disability that affects the examinees ability to write. It should be noted that the certificate was not issued by a competent medical board but the same was issued by a Senior Resident who is practicing in Government Medical College, Tuticorin. A A S Peethambaran 2025.09.30 12:49:36+05'30' -10- Senior Resident is a junior doctor who starts medical practice after completion of PG Degree as per the bond obligation and it is evident that such junior doctors are not competent to issue certificate regarding physical limitations for a candidate. The aforesaid certificate was not authorized by HOD of Ophthalmology as stated by Differently Abled Welfare Officer. Further, the date of the signature of Section Officer in the same certificate was 21.09.2021 which was not matching with the certificate dated 06.08.2024. In the light of these circumstances, there are constraints for VSSC/ISRO to accept the confirmation given by the District Differently Abled Welfare Officer, Tuticorin and the medical re- assessment of the applicant by a competent medical board was requied. This was brought to the notice of the District Differently Abled Welfare Officer, Tuticorin vide email dated 06.05.2025 requesting him to call the applicant for a medical re-assessment for confirmation of the disability percentage. The District Differently Abled Welfare Officer, Tuticorin was also requested to enforce attendance of the applicant for re- assessment of his disability and if the candidate was not appearing for such re-assessment, initiate appropriate action deemed fit under intimation to VSSC. It was also requested to inform their decision in the matter for enabling the Centre to take suitable decision on referring the A S Peethambaran 2025.09.30 12:49:36+05'30' -11- candidate to independent Medical Board of Kerala State Government medical authorities. A copy of the said email is produced as Annnexure R-1(I). The candidate refused to appear for the re-assessment. Hence, being a model employer the respondent department was duty bound to verify the correctness of the Disability Certificate issued by UDID authority for which the postponement of joining was unavoidable. It is submitted that no decision regarding the cancellation of the candidature of the applicant has been taken till date and the O.A is, therefore, pre- mature. There is no provision in RPwD Act, which restrains the respondent department from confirming the medical assessment of the applicant. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the appointing authority has full powers to reopen the certification in order to verify the correctness therein.
9. On going through all the documents which have been produced by the applicant in support of his claim for 40% disability, it is noted that the basic document based on which all the relative documents are issued primarily relied upon Annexure A-2 Disability Certificate dated 11.05.2023 by the UDID Card Issuing Authority which does not have name of the issuing person, medical authority who conducted the A S Peethambaran 2025.09.30 12:49:36+05'30' -12- examination based on which document has been issued. The rule position under the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities Notification dated 16.10.2024 has been amended and sub-rule 4 of Rule 18 regarding issue of disability certificate/UDID Card states that "the medical authority shall, after due examination issue a permanent Disability Certificate/UDID card in cases where there are no chances of improvement over time in the degree of disability or issue a certificate of disability/UDID Card indicating the period of validity in cases where there is any chance of improvement over time in the degree of disability." There is no provision in the rules for the UDID card to be reopened once issued is the argument which has been taken by the applicant.
10. A decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Kshithi.P.V. vs. Union of India (2024) KHC 1398 has been cited in support of this argument wherein it has been held that Commissioner for Entrance Examintions cannot rely on any certificate superseding the certificate issued by the competent authorities under Act. It is clearly stated in the judgment that it is to be noted in this regard that S.58(3) specifically A S Peethambaran 2025.09.30 12:49:36+05'30' -13- provides that the certificate of disability issued under the said provision shall be valid across the country. Further in the case of Om Rathod vs. Director General of Health Services & Ors., (2024) SCC Online SC 3130 in paragraph 54 it has been stated that "the disability of a person is quantified at the time of availing a Unique Disability ID Card. The qualification of disability is moot at the point of admission to educational courses since the eligibility for a person to benefit from reservation may be evaluated using the quantification in the UDID Card. If a person with disability wants to have themself re-assessed so as to verify whether their disability falls within the prescribed parameters for reservation - they may choose to do so by updating their UDID Cards." However, in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. vs. Ravindra Kumar Sharma & Ors. (2016) 4 SCC 791 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated in paragraph 3 that a Single Bench of the High Court of Allahabad while dismissing the WP hold that even otherwise under the rules there can be a review of the decision upon representation by the applicant and fresh order can be passed. Thus the certificate issued is not final. However, the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad over ruled the same stating that it is not permissible to reopen medical certification carried out under the Rules of 1996, however, directed that a A S Peethambaran 2025.09.30 12:49:36+05'30' -14- physical verification may be made and if the candidate has not been issued certificate of disability or otherwise or that he does not suffer from any disability so certified which entitles him to such a certificate in that event the candidate can be subjected to fresh medical test and not otherwise. In this particular case it was noted in paragraph 10 that the Division Bench of the High Court has ignored and overlooked the material fact that verification has already been done by the Medical Board and it has been found that certificates of 21% were fraudulently obtained. The High Court has overlooked that on mere physical verification it may not be possible to know various kinds of disabilities such as that of eyes, ear impairment, etc. That can only be done by the medical examination and particularly when the High Court itself has observed that in case there is genuine suspicion and fraud has been committed, medical certification can be reopened. Counsel for the applicant submits that in this case there is a genuine medical certificate. To substantiate this, his only argument is that the rules do not provide for any re-assessment for reopening of the certificate unless there is any chance of disability likely to improve and since the re-assessment is not statutorily required and the VSSC Board has no concurrent status, they cannot suggest re-assessment.
A S Peethambaran 2025.09.30 12:49:36+05'30' -15-
11. It is seen that in this instance the respondent department has not sought to reopen the UDID certificate. It has sought for verification of the certificate primarily because on a simple medical examination itself there was a 30% variation in the degree of disability and the appointment was sought to be made under the Disability Act. There appears to be a valid ground to seek confirmation of the certificate and the re-assessment of the extent of disability. The respondent department has not even suggested that they are competent to conduct such re-assessment but have in fact recommended that the re-assessment be done by a competent authority in the place of residence of the applicant or by a proper medical authority constituted by the Kerala State Government for conducting such a re-assessment. It is not understood why the applicant is adamant about any form of re-assessment. In this case even though it is noticed that there is a variation in the degree of disability to the extent that it would disentitle him of the benefit of reservation, it has not been suggested by the respondent department that the applicant is being denied the appointment. It has merely been stated that an independent re-assessment is necessitated and the appointment of the applicant is deferred until confirmation on the extent of disability. The respondents have also produced the decision of the Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal A S Peethambaran 2025.09.30 12:49:36+05'30' -16- in O.A.No.170/1057/2019 which has confirmed this position. We would go to the extent of saying that the refusal of the candidate to participate in any form of re-assessment would draw adverse inference even by the issuing authority on the variation of the disability.
12. In the light of the above, we find no merit in the case and the O.A is accordingly dismissed. The applicant is directed to appear before the competent Medical Board for re-assessment/revaluation to examine the extent of disability within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case of failure to do so, the respondent department is free to disqualify his candidature. No order as to costs.
(Dated, this the 30th day of September, 2025) V. RAMA MATHEW JUSTICE K.HARIPAL ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER asp A S Peethambaran 2025.09.30 12:49:36+05'30' -17- List of Annexures in OA/180/00151/2025
1. Annexure A-1 - True copy of the advertisement No.VSSC-323 dated 02.04.2023 issued by the 3rd respondent.
2. Annexure A-2 - True copy of the disability certificate issued by Medical Authority Members dated 11.05.2023 bearing No.TN 2640719940218161.
3. Annexure A-3 - True copy of the select list published by 4 th respondent dated 27.03.2024 bearing No.VSSC/RMT/9.0/323/2023.
4. Annexure A-4 - True copy of the letter proposing to engage as Trainee issued by Administrative Officer under the 3 rd respondent dated 03.04.2024 bearing No.RMT/9.0/323/2023.
5. Annexure A-5 - True copy of the offer of appointment as Library Assistant - A bearing No.VSSC/RMT/9.0/323/1487/2023 dated 17.01.2025 issued by 4th respondent.
6. Annexure A-6 - True copy of the letter sent through email by the Administrative Officer under 3rd respondent dated 21.01.2025.
7. Annexure A-7 - True copy of the letter of the applicant sent by email to the Administrative Officer dated 27.01.2025.
8. Annexure A-8 - True copy of the letter submitted by the applicant to the 4th respondent with speed post receipt dated 02.02.2025.
9. Annexure A-9 - True copy of the letter bearing No.VSSC/RMT/9.0/2025 dated 11.02.2025 issued by the 4 th respondent.
10. Annexure A-10 - True copy of the representation of the applicant dated 18.02.2025 against Annexure A-9 to the 3 rd respondent.
11. Annexure A-11 - True copy of the medical certificate for employment issued by Medical Officer of 3 rd respondent dated 21.01.2025.
A S Peethambaran 2025.09.30 12:49:36+05'30' -18-
12. Annexure A-12 - True copy of the certificate regarding physical limitation issued by notified medical authority Tuticorin dated 06.08.2024.
13. Annexure A-13 - True copy of the communication dated 16.04.2025 bearing No.ROC No.1312/A/2025 from Thoothukudi Authority to the 3rd respondent.
14. Annexure A-14 - True copy of the disability certificate bearing No.LV 42061 issued by the State Commissioner for the Differently Abled, Chennai, Tamilnadu State to the applicant.
15. Annexure A-15 - True copy of the acknowledgement/Resident Copy issued by the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India to the applicant. Enrollment No.33260000023051129012 dated 22.05.2023.
16. Annexure A-16 - True copy of the Unique Disability ID issued by the UDID Card Issuing Authority, Tuticorin, Tamilnadu to the applicant. ID No.TN2640719940218161, date of issue 22.08.2023.
17. Annexure A-17 - True copy of the letter dated 25.08.2025 submitted before the District Differently Abled Welfare Officer, Tuticorin District by the applicant.
18. Annexure A-18 - True copy of the communication dated 26.08.2025 issued to the applicant by the District Differently Abled Welfare Officer, Tuticorin.
19. Annexure A-19 - True copy of the GO(Ms) No.8/Welfare of Differently Abled Persons (DAP - 3.2) Department/Tamilnadu Government dated 21.09.2021 issued by the Government of Tamilnadu, along with Appendix - I and Appendix - II.
20. Annexure R-1(a) - A copy of the O.M.No.E.15012/4/2005-Sec. (V)(IV) dated 22.03.2013.
A S Peethambaran 2025.09.30 12:49:36+05'30' -19-
21. Annexure R-1(b) - A copy of the communication No.VSSC/RMT/9.0/323/1487/2023 dated 17.01.2025 of the Senior Administrative Officer, Recruitment & Review Section.
22. Annexure R-1(c) - A copy of the disability certificate dated 21.01.2025 issued by the VSSC Medical Board.
23. Annexure R-1(d) - A copy of the Government of India Notification dated 16.10.2024 amending the RPwD Rules, 2017.
24. Annexure R-1(e) - A copy of the letter dated 11.03.2025 issued by the Senior Administrative Officer, Recruitment & Review Section, VSSC.
25. Annexure R-1(f) - A copy of the letter dated 04.04.2025 received from the District Differently Abled Welfare Officer, Thoothukudi.
26. Annexure R-1(g) - A copy of the letter dated 16.04.2025 received from the District Differently Abled Welfare Officer, Thoothukudi.
27. Annexure R-1(h) - A copy of the certificate dated 06.08.2024 forwarded to VSSC by the District Differently Abled Welfare Officer, Thoothukudi.
28. Annexure R-1(i) - A copy of the email dated 06.05.2025 of Administrative Officer, Recruitment & Review Section, VSSC.
______________________ A S Peethambaran 2025.09.30 12:49:36+05'30'