EIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR \ M S.B. : HQN’BLE MR. SAT!SH K. AGNIHGTRI J. VVRIT PETITION g8. g NQ.910 OF 2085 Petitioner M. Murlidhar Patnaik VGI‘SU S esgondents : State of Madhya Pradesh and othcrs resent : Mr. H.B.Agrawal, Sem'or Advocate with Mr. Manish Agrawal, counsel for the petitioner‘ Mrs. A11ju Abuja, Deputy Government Advocate for the respondents/State. GRDER (Passed on 24m GfAugust, 2006) ti ' Learned couglsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed through proper selection process on the post of Lower Division Clerk. The petitioner duly submitted his disability certificate of blindness. The selection committee, after having examined the certificate dated 23—3-1990 (Annexm'e—Al ), appointed him on the post of Lower Division Clerk and the petitioner was assigned the job of Telephone Operator with effect It,\ R P fmm the date when the petitioner joined the oEce, i.e., 20-8—1993 (Anilexure—A4). The appointment order dated 2—8—1993 (Annexm‘e— A3) prescribed that the selected candidates would be examined for verification of their residence, character by the police and for verification of the medical certificate by the Chief Medical Officer, by the employer separately. On enqaiiy, the medical board, Vide Aimemire—A6 dated 19-11~1993, repotted that the petitioner was found 100% blind as per the original eeitificate submitted by him at the time of selection. The medical certificate dated 23-3—1990 (Annexure-Al) was accordingly found correct. Hence, this is not a case where sewices of the petitioner could be terminated on the ground that the medical ceitificate filed by the petitioner was not genuine or was forged. It appears on pemsal of Annexure—AS, a certificate issued by Joint Director, Public Instructions, Raipur, Division Raipur, that the petitioner was assigned the work of Telephone Operator from the beginning since the date the petitioner joined on 20—8-1993 and he had been Working satisfactorily. < v 2. The order of termination dated 18-1-1994 (Annexure- A7). was passed without issuing show cause notice or adording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was unfit for Lower Division Clerk. The termination order dated 18-1—1994 (Antiexure-A7) is not in accordance with the terms and conditions of the appointment and as such the same is ' (‘3' Vitiated 0n aecount 0f the fact that the pah'tioner while facing the interview was directed to produce the disability caxiiflcate. The petiiioner has produced disability cartifwate of blindness dated 23— 3-1990 (AnnexureuAl). It is, therefore, apparent that it was it: the Imowledge of the ofme‘ts who were in the selection committee and who had selected the petitioner for the post. The tenns and eonditioas of the appointment are to verify the geouioeness of the eeitifieate not for any other purpose. The medical certificate issued by District Medical Board on 19414993 (Annxure-Aé) did not hnd any pewersity in the medical certificate submitted by the petitioner dated 23—3—1990 (Annexare-Al). The respondents ought not to have taken the plea that in the medical board the petitioner was found untit which was a known condition before the selection committee and the petitioner Was selected in accordance with law for appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk. In the event the petitioner is not in a position to perform table worlg the petitioner ought to have been given any other work as was done aher joining idi’service. The petitioner was assigned the work of Telephone Operator and 3he was found successful as per the ceititicate Annexure—AS. ’3 3 . Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the petitioner was denied salary for the period of five months when hc had raguiariy am! sincei'ely w0i‘kcd on the post of Lower Bivision Clerk as Talephone Operator. 4. The State Counsel raiies 0x1 the tarms and wnditiens of the appointment order, which provides for non-payment of salaxy in the event the residence certiftcate, medical certificate produced by the candidate are found forged or not true. The contetrtion of the State Courtsel i rejected as the same is cntrary to the terms and conditions of the appointment. 5. The State Government by Circular No.F.9- l/39/1/AAPR. dated 9-7-1991 has provided reservation of 1% seat in appointment of Class HI and IV Employees with 10 years relaxation in age. Thereaher, hy Circular No.F8—l/97/AA.PR./1 dated 1—8—1997, the reservation of disabled persons was increased to 6%. In the present case, the petitioner was selected under special reeraitment drive for appointment of disabled persons (Annexure A2). The medieal certificate of the petitioner of blindness was not found incorrect or forged. gAccordingly, the petitioner is entitied to payment of salar for the period he had worked in the office. y v 6. The petition is accordingly allowed to the above extent and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service granting notional seniority for fixing the pay-scale and other s o begmfxts. casts. In fhe facts of the case, the pam'es $hall béar their awn Certieed capy as per rules. J .. m f , sdl- ' ‘ Satish K. Agnihotn ”T ' Judge