Ankit Kumar Shukla v. Union Public Service Commission & Others

1. Petitioner is aggrieved by the directions contained in order dated 16.10.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (‘Tribunal’). 2019:DHC:6982-DB

2. The petitioner herein had appeared for Engineering Services Examination, 2016 pursuant to an examination notice dated 27.02.2016 issued by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). Provisions were made in the service for reservation in favour of physically disabled persons of various categories. The petitioner applied in the said category, claiming to be suffering from permanent hearing loss. The disability certificate relied upon by the petitioner was issued by the District Medical Board, Rewa showing 40% permanent hearing loss. The petitioner was however referred to the Medical Board of Railways at Jabalpur; whereupon in the certificate issued on 04.11.2017, it was observed that the disability of the applicant, though 40%, does not fulfil the eligibility criteria for being extended the benefit of reservation in the physically handicapped category. Accordingly, the petitioner was required to appear before an Appellate Medical Board. By an order of 30.01.2017, the petitioner was informed that the Appellate Medical Board has declared him 'unfit' for all services in the physically disabled persons category on account of not fulfilling the disability criteria for hearing-handicapped persons, inasmuch as the petitioner's hearing disability was correctable.

3. In this backdrop, the Tribunal granted prayer (III) of the O.A. and passed the following directions:-

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that once the petitioner had filed a disability certificate from the Medical Board at Rewa, there was no occasion for the respondents to direct the petitioner to appear again for medical examination before the Medical Board of the Railways at Jabalpur. She further submits that even in the counteraffidavit, the respondents have admitted that the disability of the petitioner herein was found to be 40% but since it was found to be correctable, he was denied the benefit of reservation.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have considered their rival submissions.

6. In view of the somewhat contradictory or ambiguous opinions of the Medical Boards, in our view, the Tribunal has correctly allowed prayer (III) of the O.A. The petitioner shall accordingly appear before the Appellate Medical Board at Delhi, who would record a finding as to the percentage of the hearing disability of the applicant; and additionally also give its opinion as to whether the disability is permanent or correctable.

7. We accordingly modify order dated 16.10.2019 made by the Tribunal to the above extent, directing that the Appellate Medical Board at Delhi would, in addition to the percentage of hearing disability, also give its opinion as to whether the hearing disability suffered by the petitioner is permanent or correctable, within two months of the date this order; and thereafter, the respondents would take a fresh view in relation to the petitioner's candidature.