1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12856 OF 2017

[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.  16518 of 2013 ] RIMA TAIPODIA                                  Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS ARUNACHAL PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE  COMMISSION & ORS.   Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T KURIAN, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant is before this Court, aggrieved by the order dated 02.04.2013 passed by the High Court of  Gauhati  in  Writ  Appeal  No.  06  of  2012.   The appellant  has  been  directed  by  the  High  Court  to appear  before  the  State  Medical  Board  to  have  an assessment of his disability, for the Group-B post, in which he sought appointment.

3. The requirement was minimum 40% disability.  That disability is to be verified under the Persons with Disabilities  (Equal  Opportunities,  Protection  of Rights and Full Participation) Rules, 1996.  Rules 4 and 5 read as follows:-

2

“4.  Authorities to give Disability Certificate:-  (1)   A  Disability Certificate  shall  be  issued  by  a Medical  Board  duly  constituted  by the  Central  and  the  State Government. (2) The  State  Government  may constitute  a  Medical  Board consisting of at least three members out of which at least one shall be a specialist in the particular field for  assessing  locomotor/Visual including  low  vision/hearing  and speech  disability,  mental retardation  and  leprosy  cured,  as the case may be. 5.  (1)   The  Medical  Board  shall, after  due  examination,  give  a permanent Disability Certificate in cases of such permanent disabilities where  there  are  no  chances  of variation  in  the  degree  of disability. (2) The  Medical  Board  shall indicate the period of validity in the  certificate,  in  cases  where there is any chance of variation in the degree of disability. (3) No  refusal  of  Disability Certificate shall be made unless an opportunity  is  given  to  the applicant of being heard. (4) On  representation  by  the applicant,  the  Medical  Board  may review its decision having regard to

3

all the facts and circumstances of the case and pass such order in the matter as it thinks fit.”

4. It is not in dispute that the appellant has never been  examined  by  the  State  Medical  Board.   The certificates,  based  on  which  the  appellant  was appointed, were admittedly not issued by the State Medical Board.  Apparently, it is in this regard that the  High  Court  directed  the  appellant  to  appear before the State Medical Board.

5. On 26.04.2017, having regard to the submission that he would appear before the State Medical Board, without  prejudice  to  his  contentions,  this  Court passed the following order :-

“The petitioner has volunteered to appear  before  the  State  Medical Board  in  order  to  clear  all  the doubts.   We  direct  the  Arunanchal Pradesh  State  Disability  Board  to examine the petitioner.   

Needless to say that the Board should  have  a  qualified Orthopedician.   We  direct  the petitioner  to  appear  before  the Board  in  the  last  week  of  June, 2017.  The exact date on which he has to appear will be intimated to him by the Board.

4

It is made clear that this is without prejudice to the contentions raised  by  the  petitioner  in  this Special Leave Petition.   

List on 21.07.2017.      The Board will send its report

to this Court before the next date of hearing.”

6. Accordingly,  the  State  Medical  Board  has subjected the appellant to the required examination and  the  disability  has  been  assessed  and  the appellant is found to have a total disability of only 33.9%.   The  assessment  made  by  the  State  Medical Board reads as follows :-

“Medical  Board  in  respect  of  Mr.Rima Taipodia In  reference  to  Supreme  Court,  Dated 26.04.2017 and in compliance with Chief Medical Superintendent, Tomo Riba State Hospital,  Naharlagun  order  No. ASH/MLC-1383/  2011/pt-I-838-44,  dated Naharlagun  the  18th May,  2017  to ascertain the degree of Disability of Mr. Rima Taipodia on 30.05.2017 at 10.00 AM in the State Standing Medical Board Room of Tomo Riba State Hospital, Naharlagun. On  examination  Shri  Rima  Taipodia  has got within normal range of vital status but has suffered from Volksman Ischemic Contractured  of  Left  Hand  following fractured  of  Both  Bone  Forearm  during childhood.  So, the disability components

5

of Cpper extremely read as :

1. ARM COMPONENT

1. Range of movement (Elbow & Wrist)

5.9%  

2.  Muscle  Strength (Elbow & Wrist) 3.  Co-ordinated Activities  

9%

2. HAND COMPONENT

1. Prehension 4%

2. Sensation 3% 3. Strength 7%

3. Additional Weightage

1.  Deformity 1%

2. Contructures 1% 3.  Cosmetics appearance

1%

4. Abnormal Mobility 2%   TOTAL DISABILITY % 33.9%

Therefore,  the  Standing  Medical  board certify that Mr. Rima Taipodia has got Disability of 33.9% (Thirty Three Point Nine) his left upper Extremely (Hand).”

7. Mr.  Sanjay  Parikh,  learned  counsel,  has vehemently  contended  that  at  the  time  of  the appellant  securing  the  employment  based  on certificate issued in 2009, the disability was found to be 50% and according to the learned counsel, going by the nature of disability, the situation today has improved and thus, the disability is presently below 40%.   We  find  it  difficult  to  appreciate  this contention.

6

8. Under the Rules, it is required to be certified that  either  a  person  is  suffering  from  permanent disability where there are no chances of variation in the degree of disability and if there is any chance of variation in the degree of disability, it should be indicated in the Certificate that the Certificate is for a particular period of validity.  In the case of the appellant, the certificate relied on by him is not  time  bound  and  so,  there  are  no  chances  of variation  in  the  degree  of  disability,  meaning thereby, it is meant to be a permanent disability. If  the  State  Medical  Board  has  assessed  the disability to be below 40%, that only means that the appellant did not have 40% disability, as required under law.  Thus, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed.

9. Now  that  the  appellant  has  been  subjected  to examination  by the  State Medical  Board, it  is not necessary to subject him to examination by another medical  board  unless  the  appellant  seeks  a  review thereof.

10. Now that the appellant has been found to be of disability below the required percentage, it is for the respondent-State to take appropriate action.  Ms.

7

Meenakshi  Lekhi,  learned  counsel  appearing  for Respondent No.3, submits that Respondent No. 3, whose certificate  shows  to  be  having  75%  permanent disability, is the person next to be appointed.  The State  is  directed  to  take  immediate  action,  in accordance with law.

11. We make it clear that in case Respondent No. 3 is the one who is to replace the appellant in the category  of  persons  of  disability,  steps  will  be taken forthwith.    

No costs.  .......................J.

             [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]  

.......................J.               [ R. BANUMATHI ]  

New Delhi; September 14, 2017.

8

ITEM NO.11               COURT NO.5               SECTION XIV                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 16518 of 2013  RIMA TAIPODIA                                      Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS ARUNACHAL PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 14-09-2017 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM :  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH          HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI For Appellant(s) Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Adv.                      Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR

Mr. Uday Manaktala, Adv.  Mr. Rajan Mani, Adv.  

                   For Respondent(s) Mr. Ginnyu J. Raotray, Adv.  

Ms. Kanchan Kaur Dhodi, AOR Ms. Bhawna Pal, Adv.  Ms. Meenakshi Lekhi, Adv.  (Appearance slip not given)

                   Mr. Harish Pandey, AOR                     Mr. Anil Shrivastav, AOR                          UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following                              O R D E R

Leave granted.  The  appeal  is  dismissed  in  terms  of  the  signed  reportable

Judgment.   Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA)                              (RENU DIWAN)    COURT MASTER                                ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(Signed reportable Judgment is placed on the file)