KUMAR DNYANDEV KAMBLEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRU SECRETARY, PUBLIC HEALTH DEPT. AND ORS

                                                                                 W.P.-4186-2019.odt




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                           CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                                          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                           WRIT PETITION NO.4186 OF 2019

                      Kumar Dnyandev Kamble                         ]
                      Age – 40 years, Occ. Service,                 ]
                      Residing at - Post Shingnapur.                ]
                      Taluka – Karveer,                             ]
                      District – Kolhapur.                          ]   Petitioner
         Digitally
         signed by
         SHAILAJA
                                 versus
SHAILAJA SHRIKANT
SHRIKANT HALKUDE
HALKUDE Date:
         2026.10.08
         18:48:34
         +0530
                      1          State of Maharashtra               ]
                                 Through Secretary,                 ]
                                 Public Health Department,          ]
                                 Mantralaya,                        ]
                                 Mumbai – 32.                       ]

                      2.         Directorate of Medical Education   ]
                                 and Research,                      ]
                                 Government Dental College          ]
                                 And Hospital Building,             ]
                                 St. George’s Hospital compound,    ]
                                 Near V.T., Mumbai 400 001.         ]

                      3.         Dean,                              ]
                                 Rajashree Chhatrapati Shahu        ]
                                 Maharaj Government Medical         ]
                                 College, Kolhapur.                 ]

                      4.         Dean,                              ]
                                 Grant Medical College and          ]
                                 Department of Traumatology         ]
                                 and Orthopaedic Surgery,           ]
                                 2nd floor, Main Building,          ]
                                 Byculla, Mumbai – 8.               ]

                                 [Summons for Respondents           ]
                                  No.1 to 4 to be served            ]
                                 on the Ld. GP for the              ]
                                 State of Maharashtra].             ]   Respondents
                      Shailaja                                                        Page 1 of 15
                                                                     W.P.-4186-2019.odt



                                    …..
Mr. Venkatish A. Shastry, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Karan Thorat, A.G.P., for Respondent – State.
                                    …..

                   CORAM                        :      RAJESH S. PATIL AND
                                                       ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.

                  RESERVED ON                   :      28th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
                  PRONOUNCED ON                 :      8th October, 2026.

JUDGMENT: [PER ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.]:

1.            Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and, by consent, taken up

for final hearing and heard learned Advocate for the Petitioner and learned

A.G.P. for the Respondents – State.

2.            The Petitioner, feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the issuance

of an undated handicapped certificate (dated 21.05.2018) by Respondent No.

4 – Dean, Grant Medical College and Sir JJ Group of Hospitals, Mumbai (for

short “J.J. Hospital”), has preferred this Petition.

3.            The Petitioner’s case is that he has been working as a Class-IV

employee on the post of “Attendant” in the Laboratory Department of

Rajashree Chhatrapati Shahu Maharaj Government Medical College,

Kolhapur (for short, “Shahu Medical College”), since 1st September 2005. He

was selected and appointed to the said post, which was reserved for

candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste category (for short, “S.C.

category”).


Shailaja                                                                  Page 2 of 15
                                                                         W.P.-4186-2019.odt



4.            The Petitioner was suffering from “Post Polio Residual Paralysis

Left Lower Limb”, resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 45%. The

Orthopaedic Surgeon affiliated to the Civil Hospital, Kolhapur, examined

him, and a Committee constituted of designated Doctors for the purpose of

issuing the requisite certificate at CPR Hospital, Kolhapur, issued a

Disability Certificate dated 14th August 2005 in favour of the Petitioner.

Since then, he has been availing of the benefits available to persons with

disabilities in accordance with law.

5.            On 15th May 2018, Respondent No. 4 – Dean – J.J. Hospital,

issued a communication informing Respondent No.3 – Shahu Medical

College that Respondent No.2 – Directorate of Medical Education and

Research had directed verification of the disability certificates of the

employees of Respondent No. 3- Shahu Medical College; accordingly, a list

of employees’ names and dates has been issued for the verification of the

authenticity of disability certificates. As per the said list, the Petitioner was to

attend the J.J. Hospital on 21.05.2018. Accordingly, he attended J.J. Hospital

and was examined on the same date by Dr. Ankit A. Narfatia, Assistant

Professor, Orthopaedic Department. Thereafter, the Committee constituted by

Respondent No.4 issued a fresh disability certificate certifying that the

Petitioner had ‘Physical Impairment’ and was suffering from 35% Permanent

disability.


Shailaja                                                                      Page 3 of 15
                                                                    W.P.-4186-2019.odt



6.           Based on the Disability Certificate issued by Respondent No.4,

Respondent No.3 issued communication dated 12.12.2018 calling upon the

Petitioner to appear before the enquiry committee along with the original

Disability Certificate and other relevant documents to face the enquiry.

Pursuant to the said communication, the Petitioner appeared before the

committee on 18.12.2018 and submitted his explanation regarding variation

of the percentage of disability. Despite submitting the explanation and

thereby indicating the reason for variation, Respondent No.3 issued a show

cause notice dated 18.12.2018 to the Petitioner and asked why his services

should not be terminated for tendering an inaccurate/fallacious disability

certificate to obtain the benefits available to disabled persons.

7.           The Petitioner further contends that, in pursuance of the

Government Circular dated 16.05.2009 and Government Resolution dated

06.10.2012, Respondent No.3 proceeded ahead with the drive to verify

disability Certificates issued to its employees and accordingly published

official communication on 07.07.2018 and asked its Class III and Class IV

employees to appear before the committee constituted by Respondent No.4

on 09.07.2018.

8.           The Petitioner further propounds that the disability certificate

was issued without following the mandate of the Circular dated 16 th May

2009 and the Government Resolution dated 6th October 2012 and, therefore,
Shailaja                                                                 Page 4 of 15
                                                                       W.P.-4186-2019.odt



the said certificate cannot be said to have been issued by the Competent

Committee in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the aforesaid

Circular and Government Resolution. It is further contended that Respondent

No.4 – J.J. Hospital, issued an undated certificate purportedly while re-

verifying the disability certificate dated 14th August 2005, which the duly

prescribed Committee had issued in accordance with the Government

Resolution dated 6th October 2012.

9.           It is submitted that the verification exercise undertaken after a

considerable lapse of nearly fifteen years is itself vitiated on the ground of

limitation. It is, therefore, urged that the undated disability certificate (dated

21st May 2018) issued by Respondent No.4 – J.J. Hospital, was issued

without following the procedure and mandate prescribed under the aforesaid

Circular and Government Resolution and, as such, cannot be taken into

consideration. The Petitioner has, therefore, prayed for quashing and setting

aside the said undated handicapped certificate.

10.          Per contra, Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have resisted the Petition

contending that, pursuant to a complaint received regarding use of bogus

disability certificates, the State Government had initiated scrutiny of the

disability certificates of existing Government employees, who were claiming

the benefits of disability conditions. During this scrutiny, three members of

the Medical Board of Respondent No.4 - J.J. Hospitals examined the
Shailaja                                                                    Page 5 of 15
                                                                          W.P.-4186-2019.odt



Petitioner in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 6 th October

2012, which was then applicable. Upon such examination, the Petitioner was

found to have 35% disability. Since the disability was below the prescribed

threshold of 40%, the Medical Board rejected the Petitioner's disability

certificate.

11.              Secondly, it is contended that the Petitioner has an alternate

remedy to challenge the Medical Board's decision by filing an appeal before

the Appellate Board. It is submitted that, admittedly, the Petitioner has not

availed of the said remedy of appeal. On these grounds, the present Petition

is liable to be dismissed, and the Respondents be permitted to recover from

the Petitioner the monetary benefits availed of based on the earlier disability

certificate.

12.              In the above backdrop, the following points arise for

determination, and we delve upon these issues one by one;

(i)        Whether the permanent disability certificate issued by the prescribed
           committee can be subjected to re-verification?
(ii)       Whether the Medical Board constituted by Respondent No.4 – J.J.
           Hospital is the Competent Authority to issue disability certificate?
(iii)      Whether the disability assessed by the Medical Board constituted by
           J.J. Hospital is just, proper and legal?
(iv)       Whether the Petitioner is entitled to seek relief under Article 226 of the
           Constitution of India when an alternate remedy of Appeal is provided
           before the Appellate Board?

Shailaja                                                                       Page 6 of 15
                                                                             W.P.-4186-2019.odt



13.              Having considered the extensive oral submissions of the learned

Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned AGP appearing for the

Respondents and having gone through the record, it would be appropriate to

refer to the dictum laid down by this Court in Santosh Hiraman Lashkare v.

State of Maharashtra and Others, as the issue involved in this bunch of writ

petitions and the case at hand is identical.

14.              It is pertinent to note that this Court (Principal Seat), in a batch

of Writ Petitions, including Writ Petition No. 4325 of 2026, Santosh Hiraman

Lashkare v. State of Maharashtra and Others , has dealt with an identical issue

and laid down guidelines regarding the re-verification of disability

certificates. While dealing with a similar controversy, this Court has observed

as under:

           “The verification/scrutiny exercise conducted by the State Government
           was needed because the State Government has been receiving large
           complaints from various departments and individuals that several
           employees in Government services are using bogus disability
           certificates/non genuine certificates/ temporary or below benchmark
           disabilities certificates/ UDID cards and working in the government
           establishments and are also obtaining benefits that are reserved
           exclusively for persons with benchmark disabilities”.


15.              This Court after considering Section 2 (r) and 2(s) of the Persons

with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full

Participation) Act, 1995, (for short “ Act of 1995”) (now replaced by New Act

of 2016), while replying to the said controversy has held that Re-verification

Shailaja                                                                           Page 7 of 15
                                                                     W.P.-4186-2019.odt



of disability certificates is permissible under the Rights of Persons with

Disabilities Act, 2016 (for short “ Act of 2016”) with Rules as a large number

of beneficiaries are noticed to have indulged in irregularities/fraud, which

also stinks of the involvement of the medical faculty. Therefore, the State

directed that all the Petitioners and similarly placed employees shall subject

themselves to medical examination. It was also observed that the State has

been grappling with growing discoveries of exaggerated disability

percentages.

16.            It was also observed that in the light of the Judgments/Orders of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Rajasthan High Court that “the State has

the authority to carry out medical examination for re-assessment, in peculiar,

specific and warranting circumstances, we deem it appropriate to approve

such exercise undertaken by the State, as a one-time measure, provided a

special Medical Board is constituted for the purpose of the medical re-

examination”.

POINT NO. (i):

17.            The thrust of the argument of the learned Advocate for the

Petitioner is that, pursuant to the prescribed guidelines, on 14 th August 2005,

the Competent Committee, i.e., the Civil Surgeon, Kolhapur, had issued a

handicapped certificate in favour of the Petitioner, diagnosing that he is

suffering from “Post-Polio Residual Paralysis of the Left Lower Limb” and

assessed that he is suffering from 45% permanent disability. Thus, the
Shailaja                                                                  Page 8 of 15
                                                                      W.P.-4186-2019.odt



learned Advocate submitted that the said certificate could not be questioned

after a lapse of fifteen years. Secondly, he argued that the Competent

Committee had issued the disability certificate and, therefore, it could not be

subjected to re-verification without any reason. However, the Authorities,

without considering the guidelines laid down in the Circular dated 16th May

2009 and the Government Resolution dated 6th October 2012, called upon the

Petitioner to undergo re-verification and reassessed his disability. Therefore,

he urged that such re-verification was impermissible and was bad in law.

18.          On the other hand, the learned A.G.P. strenuously opposed the

submissions made on behalf of the Petitioner, contending that the State

Government had received complaints regarding the use of bogus disability

certificates. Accordingly, the State Government undertook scrutiny of the

disability certificates of existing Government employees claiming benefits

based on their disability. There is no bar to direct an employee to appear

before the Committee/Board for re-verification of his disability. Merely

because the Competent Authority issued the disability certificate, it cannot be

said that the certificate cannot be re-verified. He, therefore, propounded that

the employer was competent to direct the Petitioner to undergo re-

verification of his disability. According to the learned A.G.P., the action taken

by the Authorities in directing the Petitioner to undergo re-verification was

therefore justified.

Shailaja                                                                   Page 9 of 15
                                                                       W.P.-4186-2019.odt



19.          At the outset, it appears that the Directorate of Medical

Education and Research, Bombay, vide its communication dated 20 th March,

2018, directed Respondent No. 4 – Dean, J.J. Hospital to verify the disability

certificates issued in favour of the employees of Respondent No. 3 - Shahu

Medical College as well as Chhatrapati Pramilaraje Hospital, Kolhapur, to

whom online certificates have been issued. Vide communication dated 15 th

May 2018, Respondent No. 4 – Dean, J.J. Hospital directed the Petitioner and

twenty-four other employees of both the institutions to appear before it for

verification of their online disability certificates on 21 st May, 2018, 28th May,

2018 and 30th May, 2018. Pursuant to the said communication, the Petitioner

appeared before Respondent No. 4 on 21st May, 2018. Accordingly,

Respondent No.4 had examined the Petitioner and diagnosed that the

Petitioner is suffering from a “ physical impairment” disability to the extent of

35% and, therefore, rejected the certificate.

20.          The Petitioner was examined by the Board consisting of Dr.

Nadir Shah, who is a concerned Specialist; Dr Sanjay Surase, Member

Secretary/ Residential Medical Officer; and President/Civil Surgeon Mukund

B. Tayade.

21.          It is worth noting that, as per Clause 4 of the Government

Resolution dated 6th October 2012, the concerned Civil Surgeon of the Civil

Hospital or the Dean of the College is duly empowered to constitute the

Shailaja                                                                   Page 10 of 15
                                                                       W.P.-4186-2019.odt



Medical Board/Committee of three members. As per Clause 3 of the Circular

dated 16th May 2009, in cases of any suspicion or upon receipt of any

complaint in that regard, it is necessary to verify whether the Civil Surgeon

issued the said certificate.

22.          No doubt, ordinarily, certificates issued by the Civil

Surgeon/Medical Board are not subject to re-verification. However, if a

complaint is received regarding the issuance of such certificate, or in a

suspicious case, regarding the person who issued the certificate or to verify

the accuracy and authenticity of the percentage mentioned therein, it would

be appropriate to re-verify or reassess the said certificate. In such

circumstances, the employer is entitled to ask the employee to undergo a

medical examination by the Medical Board constituted by the competent

Authority, particularly when there is a tendency among people to grapple for

obtaining disability certificates showing the percentage of disability at or

above the prescribed benchmark, so as to avail the benefits available to

persons belonging to the said category.

23.          Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the learned

Advocate for the Petitioner is correct in submitting that, once the competent

Medical Board has issued the medical certificate fifteen years ago, it would

not be appropriate to subject the employee to undergo a medical examination,

in our view, if the Petitioner truly suffers from a permanent disability, there is

Shailaja                                                                   Page 11 of 15
                                                                     W.P.-4186-2019.odt



no reason for him to shy away from undergoing a medical examination in

order to dispel the doubt raised in the complaint. Such re-examination would

neither reduce his disability nor prejudice his rights. On the contrary, if the

Petitioner obtained the said certificate by showing an exaggerated percentage

of disability, then he would have reason to object to such re-examination. In

such circumstances, his refusal to undergo medical examination may give

rise to an inference against him that he does not suffer from the prescribed

benchmark disability and is, therefore, reluctant to undergo re-examination.

24.          Apart from the above, there is no bar to requiring an employee

to undergo a medical re-examination, as such re-examination would not

cause any prejudice to his rights. On the contrary, it would help to clarify the

doubt raised in the complaint received by the employer.

25.          In the light of the above discussion, in our opinion, the

Petitioner failed to make out a case to show that the employee shall not be

subjected to a re-medical examination. On the contrary, as per the dictum laid

down in Santosh Hiraman Lashkare (supra), the State has the authority to

conduct a medical examination to re-assess disability. There is no hurdle for

the same. Hence, we answer point No.1 in the affirmative.

POINT NOS. (ii), (iii) and (iv):

26.          Learned Advocate for the Petitioner has mainly emphasised that

the Medical Board constituted by Respondent No. 4 – J.J. Hospital was not

Shailaja                                                                 Page 12 of 15
                                                                         W.P.-4186-2019.odt



constituted in accordance with the mandate in Circular dated 16 th May 2009

and the Government Resolution dated 6th October 2012 and, therefore, the

issuance of the said certificate itself is illegal.

27.           It is to be noted that Clause 4 of the Circular dated 6th October

2012 prescribes that the concerned Civil Surgeon/Dean of the Hospital or

Medical College is competent and empowered to constitute a Medical

Board/Committee. Although Column 2 provides that the Dean shall be the

President and two other Doctors shall be members of the Board, the

certificate in question also indicates that Dr. Mukund Tayade was shown as

the President/Civil Surgeon. Besides, in view of the mandate laid down in the

judgment in Santosh Hiraman Lashkare (supra), an employee can be directed

to undergo a medical examination either by a Civil Surgeon or a team of

Doctors. Therefore, we find no merit in the contention advanced by the

learned Advocate for the Petitioner that Respondent No.4 was not a

competent Medical Board/Panel/Committee to issue the disability certificate.

28.           Alternatively,    it   is   contended   that,   pursuant       to      the

communication dated 15th May 2018, the Petitioner appeared before

Respondent No.4 – J.J. Hospital. However, according to the Petitioner,

instead of being examined by the Medical Board, he was examined only by

Dr. Ankit Marfatia, Assistant Professor, Orthopaedic Department. Thereafter,

the Medical Board/Committee constituted by Respondent No.4 – J.J.
Shailaja                                                                     Page 13 of 15
                                                                 W.P.-4186-2019.odt



Hospital, headed by President Dr. Tayade, issued the undated handicapped

certificate under the authority of Dr. Nadir Shah.

29.           We have perused the certificate issued by J.J. Hospital. It

reveals that the Medical Board comprised Dr. Nadir Shah, the Concerned

Specialist, Dr. Sanjay Surase, R.M.O., and Dr. Mukund Tayade,

President/Civil Surgeon. The Petitioner has not placed any material on

record, though he harped on the argument that he was examined by Dr Ankit

Marfatia and not by the Medical Board. In the absence of any supporting

material, a mere assertion made by the Petitioner cannot, by itself, be

sufficient to draw an inference that the duly constituted Medical Board did

not examine him.

30.          The next question raised by the Respondent is that, under the

Government Resolutions dated 6th October 2012 and 17th October 2017, an

employee aggrieved by a certificate issued by the Medical Board/Panel has a

remedy to challenge the same by filing appropriate proceeding/Appeal before

the Appellate Board constituted under Clause (g)(1) of the Government

Resolution dated 6th October 2012 and Clause 8 of the Government

Resolution dated 17th October 2017.

31.          In such an eventuality, even assuming that he was aggrieved by

issuance of the certificate by Board/ Committee constituted by Respondent

No.4, in such circumstances, he can avail a remedy available as per

Shailaja                                                             Page 14 of 15
                                                                       W.P.-4186-2019.odt



Government Resolution dated 6th October, 2012 and 17th October, 2017; he

can challenge the said certificate/decision of the Medical Board by filing

appropriate proceeding/Appeal before the Board constituted under aforesaid

G. R.’s. Undisputedly, the Petitioner has not availed of the said remedy.

 32.         In the absence of any such challenge, the Petitioner has failed to

establish any ground for exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court in

the interest of justice. We are, therefore, of the view that the Petitioner has

failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to exemption from re-verification or

that Board/ Committee constituted by Respondent No. 4 was not competent

to issue the disability certificate. Consequently, the challenge to the disability

certificate on the ground of want of competence cannot be sustained.

33.          In the wake of the aforesaid discussion, in our view, the

Petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs sought in the present Petition in

exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, point

Nos. (ii), (iii) and (iv) are answered as discussed above.

34.          Consequently, the Petition, being bereft of merit, stands

dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

35.          The Rule is discharged.

36.          The Petition is disposed of.



[ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.]                                   [RAJESH S. PATIL, J.]
Shailaja                                                                   Page 15 of 15