Karnataka High Court
Noorhammad I Bhoobaji vs Karnataka Public Service Commission on 30 May, 2012
Author: H N Nagamohan Das
Bench: H N Nagamohan Das
IN till HIGH C 01 RI OF K'RNAT Kk At B NCiAE ORI
DtFD IHIS Till 30 D OF MY 012
BFIORF
tHE HON 131 U MR It SlIC I HN. N G \MOH V\ D4S
ETfflNo 14SS
BUTWEEN
NOORHAMMAD I BHOOBAJI
RE (iNn562
AOl 28 YEARS
0CC PRIVATF COMPANY
FMPI OYH C'O NINGAPP
S BHAVIKATtL 183
GPRI AOl I
)PP HUSKI R MARKI T
II IC IRONIC CITY
BAN( \I ORE IT IbM R
C
C C)
tHE' PRISCIPAI SR RE' r RY
1. RBA\ DLVH OPMFNT DI PT
GOVT 01 KAR STAKA
V1K\S SOt DHA
B V'i% 1 ORE' 560 001
3 TIIP DIRE' CTOR
Ml 'ICIPAI ADMINISTR 1 ION
GOVf Of KARNK[
1OWhRS
B NGALORE 560 001
4 JAF\RVAIIK
S/OK HASINABBA
RE'GNn 56020
OPP SB VE'R JUBII I F SCHOOL
IlL MMA MASJID STRLF T
13111 ARY 583 101 RE SPONDI NTS
By Sri S \NJF I V ANG \D1 ADS FOR R I
Sri RAGH A I NDRA 66 YAIHRI H( OP E'OR R &
Sr B A BEll IAPPA \DS I OR R 4
HIS WRIT II TITION IS 1111 NDI R SR IC I F
U II ) If I)\ NDI A1i
KSIR I RI El IS
RI
)
I )(
3
ORDER
In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of declaration to declare the physical handicap certificate dated 26.04.2000 Annexure N as null and void or in the alternative to subject respondent No. 4 to independent medical board for examination of his physical disability and on securing a report from the medical board, to consider the case of petitioner for appointment.
2. Pursuant to a notification issued by respondent No.1 on 16.03.2004, petitioner, respondent No.4 and others submitted their applications. After processing the applications respondent No. I selected respondent No. 4 by extending the benefit of age relaxation on the ground that he is a physically handicapped person. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.4 has not produced the physical disability certificate in the prescribed format as per Annexure P and Q. On the other hand respondent No.4 by producing a certificate as per Annexure N secured benefit of age relaxation and 4 consequently, the appointment. ft is further contended that the certific.ate at Annexure N i.s r.ot issued by thr. competent person.
3. It is not in dispute that respondent No,4 has not produced the certificate as required under Annexure P and Q. The competent person to issue the medical certificate as per Annexure P and Q is a Board constituted for that purpose consisting of 3 members. Now respondent No. 4 is appointed, he is working and his disability is not in controversy, The controversy is only with regard to the competency of the person to certify the disability of respondent No,4. In the circum lances the alternative prayer of the petitioner is to he allowed.
4, For the reasons stated above, the following;
ORDER Writ petition is here.hv allowed.
The respondent No,4 shal.i appear before the Medical Board at Beilary as per the Govern.ment notification 5 dated 11.07.2003 on a day convenient to the Medical Board.
iii. The Medical Board shall fix a date and issue notice to respondent No. 4 to appear for medical examination as expeditiously as possible and in any event not later than six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
iv. On examination of respondent No. 4. the Medical Board shall pass appropriate orders and issue necessary certificate within a time frame of two weeks thereafter.
v. On receipt of such report from the Medical Board respondent No.1 to consider the claim of petitioner for appointment within a time frame of four weeks thereafter. Ordered accordingly.
Sd! JUDGE LRS/3 1052012.