Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the selection of the respondent no. 4 under the physically handicapped category alleging that the certificate of physical disability that has been relied upon by the respondent no. 4 is not correct and the respondent no. 4 does not suffer from any blindness.
This complaint was sought to be resolved by moving a representation before the Indian Oil Corporation and thereafter filing a Writ Petition No. 41353 of 2013 where a direction was issued to the Corporation to examine the complaint of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order. The judgment of this Court dated 31.7.2013 is Annexure 1 to the writ petition.
It appears that the respondent-Corporation thereafter proceeded to make an inquiry about the status of the certificate of the respondent no. 4 from the Chief Medical Officer, Moradabad who has informed the corporation that the certificate of physical disability tendered to the respondent no. 4 is genuine. A photostat copy of the said information dated 13/20.8.2013 which has not been filed along with the writ petition, has been produced by Sri Prakash Padia learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation. The same is extracted hereinunder:-
dk;kZy; eq[; fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh] eqjknkcknA la[;k% lh,[email protected]= @iqf"[email protected]@9535 fnukad 13-08-2013 lsok esa] lnL; ,Q0oh0lh0 [email protected] cqf) fogkj e>kSyk] fnYyh jksM] eqjknkcknA fo"k; % fodykWxrk izek.k i= la[;k&35 fnukad 29-09-2009 dh iqf"V fd;s tkus ds laca/k essaSA mijksDr fo"k;d vius dk;kZy; ds i= la[;k%ch0,[email protected],[email protected]@3] fnukad 03-08-2013 dk lanHkZ ysus dk d"V djsaA ftlds }kjk vkius Jh equsUnz flag dks tkjh fd;s x;s fodykWxrk izek.k i= ds lEc/ka esa iqf"V pkgh gSA mDr ds lEca/k esa voxr djkuk gs fd Jh equsUnz flag iq= Jh enu flag fuoklh eUuh [ksM+k iks0 ng;k] ftyk eqjknkckn dks fuxZr fodykWxrk izek.k i= la[;k%35] fnukad 29-09-2009 bl dk;kZy; }kjk gh tkjh fd;k x;k gSA lwpukFkZ izsf"krA eq[; fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh eqjknkckn In the aforesaid situation, we find that the Corporation at its level has carried out its responsibility of verifying the status of the physical disability certificate.
Learned counsel for the petitioner then contends that the actual complaint of the petitioner has not been verified. He contends that the disability itself should have been examined by the Corporation in order to find out the truth of such claim by the respondent no. 4.
We are unable to agree on this issue inasmuch as the physical disability certificate has to be granted under the relevant Act and Rules which has already been indicated in the brochure of the respondent-Corporation which is extracted hereinunder:-
"I. Physically Handicapped Category (PH) :
Candidates would be considered eligible under this category in case the candidates are orthopaedically handicapped to the extent of minimum of 40% permanent (partial) disability of either upper or lower limbs; or 50% permanent (partial) disability of both upper and lower limbs together. For this purpose, the standards contained in the Manual for Orthopaedic Surgeon in evaluating Permanent Physically Impairment brought out by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, USA and published on its behalf by the Artificial Limbs Manufacturing Corporation of India, G.T. Road, Kanpur, shall apply.
Deaf, Dumb and Blind persons with minimum degree of 40% disability will also be eligible to apply for all RGGLVs under this category. However, totally blind persons will not be eligible.
Candidate applying under this category should produce a certificate (as per the standard format given in the application format) issued by a Medical Board duly constituted by the Central/State government as per the Gazette of India Extraordinary New Delhi, No. 154 dated June 13, 2001 on Guidelines for evaluation of various disabilities and procedure for certification."
Thus, the Corporation has appropriately proceeded to receive the information about the genuineness of the certificate as extracted hereinbefore and the same has been responded to by the Chief Medical Officer.
There is no challenge raised to the certificate issued to the respondent no. 4 by the petitioner on any substantial material to support the allegations. This Court is no medical expert to receive any material and medically assess the disability certified by the medical authority. The petitioner could have approached the authority competent dealing with the medical board as per any rules therein but it appears that instead of that the District Magistrate was handed over a complaint.
In such circumstances, the entire complaint is misdirected and accordingly we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order on any of the grounds raised. Rejected.
Order Date :- 4.3.2014 Lalit Shukla