1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 972 of 2009 Ashok v. State of Maharashtra and ors -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr S.H. Barbatkar, Adv for petitioner Mr A. G. Mujumdar, AGP for respdts 1,2 Coram: D. D. Sinha and A. P. Bhangale, JJ Dated : 17th January 2011 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Asst. Government Pleader for respondents no. 1 and 2. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 29th January 2009 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur whereby Original Application No. 538 of 2007 of the petitioner/applicant filed against the order of termination from the post of Talathi, came to be dismissed. 3. It is not in dispute that the post in question was reserved for physically handicapped candidate. The case of the petitioner was considered for appointment on the post of Talathi on the basis of certificate dated 3.1.2001 issued by the Chairman, Handicapped Medical Board, Yavatmal wherein the disability of the petitioner was shown to the extent of 40 per 2 cent. The order of termination on the basis of certificate dated 1.8.2006 issued by the Medical Board, as per the observations made in the impugned order, was constituted by the State Government. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to our notice rule 4 of the Maharashtra Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Rules, 2001which lays down the authorities to give Disability Certificate. The said rule reads as under : 4. Authorities to give Disability Certificate : (1) A Disability Certificate shall be issued by a Medical Board constituted by the State Government. (2) The State Government may constitute a Medical Board consisting of at least three members out of which at least one shall be a specialist in the particular field for assessing locomotor or visual including low vision or blind or hearing and speech disability, mental retardation and leprosy cured, as the case may be. Civil Surgeon of the District shall be a chairman of the Medical Board and the Medical Board shall be equivalent to the existing Rehabilitation Centre for the disabled in the State and in the country, Medical Board shall include specialists in various disabilities.” 5. Rule 4 of the Rules of 2001 provides that the disability certificate shall be issued by a Medical Board duly 3 constituted by the State Government and one of the conditions is that Civil Surgeon of the District shall be a chairman of such Medical Board. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that neither the certificate dated 3.1.2005 nor the certificate dated 21.6.2006 was issued by the medical board which is contemplated under rule 4 of the Rules of 2001 and it is the certificate dated 1.8.2006 which was issued by a Medical Board duly constituted by the State Government wherein disability of the petitioner was shown to the extent of 20 per cent. 6. On the backdrop of these facts, we have scrutinised the decision of the Tribunal and we find that the reasoning given by the Tribunal for dismissing Original Application is just and proper. No interference is called for in the impugned order. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE joshi