Satyendra Kumar v. Union of India & Anr.

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. LPA 255/2025 & CM APPL. 22349/2025

2. This appeal has been filed, challenging the Judgment dated 12.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C.) No. 6253 of 2018, titled Satyender Kumar vs. Union of India & Anr., dismissing the said writ petition.

3. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, has inter alia observed on the validity of the Disability Certificate dated 15.02.2018 that was relied upon by the appellant, and has held as under:

certificate dated 15.02.2018 it emerges that the same was issued by the Medical Board without medical examination of the Petitioner and was based entirely on the earlier disability certificate dated 15.07.2016. In the disability certificate dated 15.02.2018, reassessment is recommended after a period of 05 years while in the certificate dated 15.07.2016, disability is certified as permanent and thus there is a stark and apparent contradiction. Also the disability certificate dated 15.02.2018 was issued without medical examination and is thus not as per the mandate of the guidelines for assessment of disability which provide a rigorous procedure for medical examination before certifying locomotive certificate. Learned counsel for the Petitioner urges that the disability certificate dated 15.02.2018 was made as per the instruction issued by ONGC and no fault can be found with the Petitioner. This submission was strenuously opposed by Mr. Singh, learned counsel for ONGC by pointing out and rightly so, that the advertisement in question was issued on 15.04.2018 and therefore, there was neither any reason nor occasion for ONGC to prescribe or instruct how disability certificate was to be issued. Be that as it may, in light of the report it cannot be held that the disability certificate dated 15.02.2018 is not genuine since it has been issue by the Board albeit it is not in consonance with the guidelines issued by the Government of India.” (emphasis supplied)

4. From the reading of the above, it would be evident that even after expressing a doubt on the validity of the Disability Certificate, the learned Single Judge has not held that the Disability Certificate dated 15.02.2018 is not genuine. On the contrary, it has held that it was not in consonance with the Guidelines issued by the Government of India.

5. The learned Single Judge then went on to consider the case of the appellant on merits as well, and dismissed the writ petition finding no merit in the same. We quote from the said Judgement as under: “9. Even otherwise, in my view, Petitioner has no case on merit, Petitioner applied against the advertisement bearing No.3/2018 for the post of MMO and reading of the writ petition and the relief clause leaves no doubt that his case in a nut shell is that the impugned advertisement is not in consonance with the mandate of Section 33 of 1995 Act and DoPT O.M. dated 20.03.2014 for the reason that there is no reservation for sub-category BL- OH for the post of MMO. There can be no quarrel that there is a statutory mandate under Section 33 of the 1995 Act for 1% reservation each for persons suffering from (a) Blindness or low vision; (b) Hearing impairment; and (c) Locomotor disability or cerebral palsy, in the posts identified for each disability, provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any department or establishment, by notification subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section.

10. ONGC has brought forth in the counter affidavit that as per the mandate of DoPT O.M. dated 20.03.2014, reservation for persons with disabilities in Group 'A' and Group 'B' posts has to be computed on the basis of total number of vacancies occurring in the direct recruitment quota in Group 'A' or Croup 'B' posts in the cadre and this mandate has been followed inasmuch as out of total number of 1032 vacancies total 26 were reserved in VH category; 56 in HH; and 32 in OH category, which is in excess of 1% reservation. Therefore, in my view, there is no violation of Section 33 of the 1995 Act and DoPT O.M. dated 20.03.2014. petitioner cannot call upon this Court to direct ONGC to make reservations specifically for a subcategory as that is not the mandate of the law. In any case, reservations in sub-categories has to be based on functional requirements of the posts and it is not for this court to determine and/or direct which of the sub-categories must be included for reservation in an advertisement for direct recruitment, as assessment of functional requirement is the domain of the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment and/or the concerned employer. There is no legal infirmity in the impugned advertisement and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Pending applications also stand disposed of.”

6. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted before us that on 12.12.2024, the learned Single Judge has heard the arguments only on the issue of the validity of the Disability Certificate dated 15.02.2018, and no submissions on the merits of the writ petition were made before the learned Single Judge. This is also raised as grounds of challenge in the appeal, as under:

No. 10 gives finding on the merits of the case without hearing the Appellant. The impugned order errs in dismissing the writ petition on merits without affording an opportunity or being heard.” (Emphasis supplied)

7. In our view, for the above ground to be agitated, the appellant has to first approach the learned Single Judge in form of a Review Application.

8. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal with liberty to the appellant to avail of his remedy in accordance with the law.

9. As far as the issue of whether the Disability Certificate dated 15.02.2018 was or was not in terms of the Guidelines issued by the Government of India, the same, on the findings of the learned Single Judge on merits of the petition, may only be an academic exercise. Therefore, at this stage, we do not deem it appropriate to bifurcate these issues to be determined separately, one by us and the other by the learned Single Judge, if so advised/required, in a separate proceeding, including by way of filing of an appeal.

10. We, therefore, dispose of this appeal with liberty to the appellant to agitate the same.