Bombay High Court
RAJENDRA BHANUDAS CHORMALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The impugned communication refusing the petitioner’s appointment cannot be sustained and the petitioner is entitled to appointment as Live Stock Supervisor under the PwD‑HH category.
Summary
The petitioner, a hard‑of‑hearing individual, applied for the post of Live Stock Supervisor under the 2023 advertisement for the PwD‑HH category and scored 94 marks, exceeding the qualifying mark of 90. Despite his eligibility, the authorities did not issue a call‑letter, citing an alleged improper selection of option ‘B’ on the application and a temporary disability certificate showing 80% disability. The petitioner challenged the refusal, and the court directed a medical board to reassess his disability, which then certified an 80% permanent disability, confirming his eligibility. The court held that the Government Resolution of July 2025 could not be applied retrospectively to the 2023 recruitment and that the petitioner’s claim was valid. Consequently, the impugned communication refusing appointment was quashed, and the respondents were ordered to issue the appointment order, with the related civil application disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the refusal to appoint the petitioner based on alleged improper application form selection and a temporary disability certificate is valid.
- Whether the Government Resolution dated 31/07/2025 can be applied retrospectively to a recruitment advertisement issued in 2023.
- Whether the petitioner satisfies the eligibility criteria of 80% permanent disability for the PwD‑HH category.
Subjects
- appointment
- disability
- hard of hearing
- reservation
- government resolution
- medical board
- writ petition
- public service recruitment
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:45882-DB
1 162-WP-5039-24.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 5039 OF 2024
BALKRUSHNA KARBHARI KHARAT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND
OTHERS
...
Mr. Rajabhau Chaudhari, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. B. B. Bhise, AGP for Respondents/State
Mr. Suhas R. Shirsat, Advocate for Respondent Nos.6 And 7
Mr. Amarsinha S. Kakade, Advocate for Applicant in CA/5042/2025
...
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5042 OF 2025
IN WP/5039/2024
RAJENDRA BHANUDAS CHORMALE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
…
CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
DATE : 28th SEPTEMBER, 2026
PER COURT :
1. This petition challenges the communication dated
15/03/2024 issued by respondent No.7, thereby refusing to give
appointment to the petitioner as a ‘Live Stock Supervisor’ from Hard
of Hearing (HH) handicapped category.
2. Petitioner applied for the post of ‘Live Stock Supervisor’
from Hard of Hearing handicapped category, pursuant to the
selection process initiated vide Advertisement No.01/2023.
Qualifying marks were 90 and he scored 94 marks out of 200.
SVH
2 162-WP-5039-24.odt
However, call letter for verification of documents was not issued to
the petitioner. He, therefore, made several representations to the
respondents. However, those were not considered in the proper
perspective and the request of the petitioner was rejected on the
ground that he has not filled application form properly. It was also
stated that the petitioner has selected option ‘B’ for Hard of Hearing
handicapped category, instead of option ‘A’. The rejection is
communicated to the petitioner by the impugned communication.
3. Heard learned advocate for petitioner, learned AGP for
the State, learned advocate for respondent Nos.6 and 7 and learned
advocate for the intervener.
4. Admittedly, petitioner belongs to Hard of Hearing
handicapped category. Learned advocate for respondent Nos.6 and
7 opposed the petition by placing reliance on the Government
Resolution dated 31/07/2025. The said argument is unacceptable in
view of the fact that the Advertisement was issued in the year 2023.
Hence, the said Government Resolution cannot be made
retrospectively applicable to the case of petitioner. Another ground
pressed into service by learned advocate for respondent Nos.6 and
7 is that, in the disability certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon it is
mentioned that the petitioner is suffering from 80% temporary
disability.
5. To assess the correct disability percentage of the
SVH
3 162-WP-5039-24.odt
petitioner, we directed the Medical Board comprising of Head of
Department of ENT to examine the petitioner and issue disability
certificate. The Medical Board has accordingly examined the
petitioner and submitted disability certificate certifying that the
petitioner is suffering from 80% permanent disability. It is, thus,
clear that the petitioner fulfills eligibility criteria for appointment to
the post of ‘Live Stock Supervisor’ from PwD-HH category.
6. It is transpired during the course of hearing that
appointment order is not issued to the petitioner though he was
selected, due to the complaint made by the intervener who is a
wait-listed candidate.
7. In the light of the above, the impugned communication
dated 15/03/2024 issued by respondent No.7 cannot be sustained
and the same is hereby quashed and set aside. The writ petition is
allowed. Respondents are directed to issue appointment order to
the petitioner.
8. Accordingly the pending civil application also stands
disposed of.
(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)
SVH
Checking your session…