Sanjeeta Kumari v. The Lt.Governor (Administrator) And ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WP.CT/34/2024 Sanjeeta Kumari Vs.
The Lieutenant Governor (Administrator) and others Mr. K. Sabir ... for the petitioner Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, Sr.Adv.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi ... for the Administration Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar ... for the respondent No.6 04.07.2025 [SR] Item No.2 The petitioner filed OA/033/2016 challenging, inter alia, the appointment of respondent no.6 as a Post Graduate Teacher (Hindi). The challenge was primarily based on the allegation that respondent no.6 secured his employment by producing a forged medical certificate claiming 40% visual impairment (blindness), thereby availing benefits under the physically handicapped category. The said certificate is placed at page 65 of the application.
It was the petitioner's case that the said certificate was issued by a doctor who was, allegedly, on leave on the date of its issuance. Hence, it was contended that the certificate was forged. The writ petition was disposed of on 28th March, 2017 with a direction to the authorities to consider the petitioner's grievance by passing a reasoned order.
It further appears that, in the meantime, based on various complaints lodged by the petitioner, a Medical Board
was directed to be constituted to assess the extent of visual disability of respondent no.6. Accordingly, a Medical Board was formed, which opined as follows:
" Medical Board Findings & Report:
Fundus picture suggestive of maculopathy. Patient at present BCV (R) 6/18, (L) artificial eye. Percentage of blindness is 40% (forty percent)."
Pursuant to the above, a speaking order dated 11th August, 2017 was passed by the Deputy Director of Education (Personnel), Education Department, Andaman and Nicobar Administration, Port Blair, rejecting the petitioner's claim. Thereafter OA/276/2018, was filed again challenging the appointment of respondent no.6 with identical prayers. This was dismissed by the Tribunal on 10th July, 2023. The said order of the Tribunal has been impugned in this present application.
Mr. K. Sabir, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that the certificate at page 125 of the present writ petition-certifying respondent no.6's disability at 40%-is incorrect. It should be 30%. He relies on a document at page 144 of the writ petition, which appears to be part of a Gazette notification purportedly issued by the Government of India.
However, the writ petition does not disclose material particulars such as the date of the notification or the name of the issuing authority.
Be that as it may, we are of the view that even on the basis of the document at page 144, it cannot be conclusively said that the visual impairment of respondent no.6 is limited to 30%.
Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, learned senior advocate appearing for the Administration, has rightly pointed out that respondent no.6 is blind in his left eye and has vision of 6/18 in his right eye. Therefore, considering the cumulative effect as per the guidelines referred to at page 144, the percentage of disability is correctly assessed at 40%, not 30%. We find no reason to entertain this writ petition. This is a successive attempt to challenge the appointment of respondent no.6 on vexatious grounds. We are of the view that once a duly constituted competent Medical Board has certified the extent of visual disability of respondent no.6 at 40%, we cannot sit in appeal over such expert opinion. The controversy regarding the percentage of blindness has, in our opinion, been conclusively settled by the findings of the Medical Board. We find no merit in the petitioner's contention that respondent no.6 obtained employment on the basis of a forged disability certificate.
Accordingly, WP.CT/34/2024 is dismissed.
( Kausik Chanda, J. ) ( Krishna Rao, J. )