The principal bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in the case observed wherein the plea was moved by the candidate who despite of clearing the UPSC Civil Services examination, was not allotted the post because of his claim for the benefit of reservation under the Multiple Disabilities category was rejected by the court.
The bench comprising of Pratima K. Gupta and Tarun Shridhar in the case observed and has stated that this court is not be comfortable with the situation where candidates are allowed to choose the agency or organization as per their preference for their medical examination. Therefore, the categorical conclusion has been given by the Professor and the Head of the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, AIIMS, New Delhi, that the applicant who in the case belongs to locomotor disability category and not the multiple disability category.
In the present case, the candidate challenged the Medical Examination Report which is being issued by the Medical Board of AIIMS, the report found that the applicant falls in the category of Locomotor Disability and not the Multiple Disability. The court in the case observed and has placed Reliance on the certificate which is issued by Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Hospital declaring him to be suffering with 90% Locomotor Disability and associated 40% speech and language impairment.
Adding to it, the court stated that here being no cause to raise even an iota of doubt upon the medical reports of AIIMS and the categorical opinion is being given by the Head of Department. Thus, the said court in the case cannot consider wherein pointing out any finger of arbitrariness or subjectivity towards the medical experts. Further, the court in the case observed that the said candidate is being entitled for benefits under Right of Person with Disabilities Act, 2016, the RPWD Act. The Tribunal in the case observed and has stated that the provisions of RPWD Act have to be read with the rules and the instructions which governs the Civil Services Examination and the reservation of posts.
However, it has also been opined by the said bench that it should not draw an exception as it being the case of applicant to be squarely governed by the relevant rules and instructions which governs the CSE and the associated medical examination of the candidate.
Accordingly, the Tribunal rejected the prayer of re-evaluation by any other hospital other than AIIMS. The Tribunal dismissed the plea.
The counsel, Advocate RV Sinha and Advocate AS Singh appeared for the petitioner.
The counsel, Advocates Neeraj Shekhar with Ashutosh Shekhar, Ashutosh Thakur, Dr. Sumit Kumar and Keshav Baheti and Chandra Pratap represented the applicant.
