CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 26 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.26 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: JULY 21, 2011 Om Parkash ..Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. S.D. Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner, who while working as District Revenue Accountant passed the examination for the promotion of Naib Tehsildar. He was going to retire on 31.12.2010. He had made various representations to respondent No.3 pleading that he was suffering from 70% and above disability on account of visual handicap. The petitioner, thus, claimed for extension of service upto 60 years of age in terms of the Government instructions. The petitioner has placed on record some evidence in support of his 1 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 26 of 2011 disability. The requirement of the instructions as issued by the State Government is that the disability certificate for grant of extension is to be issued by the Board of Doctors at P.G.I.M.S., Rohtak. Indeed the petitioner had submitted himself for medical examination before a Medical Board constituted at P.G.I.M.S., Rohtak. The opinion of the Board is that he suffers from a disability only to the extent of 40%. The petitioner is disputing this assessment made by the Board. The counsel has referred to some material, which has been placed on record. Once the instructions provide that the disability is required to be assessed by a particular institution which is an independent autonomous body, getting a certificate from another institution and making a claim on that basis can not be permitted. The petitioner has made an attempt to convey that two of the doctors constituting the Board had assessed the petitioner with 75% disability, whereas one Doctor who was slightly annoyed with him had brought down his disability to 40%. I am not prepared to accept this submission. There is no valid reasons disclosed for which the doctor was or could be annoyed with the petitioner. Once the opinion of the Board is not in favour of the petitioner, no case for interference is made out. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. July 21, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) monika JUDGE 2