DESH CHAMAN SINGH MEHRAT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the present petition, challenging the order dated 14/8/2014 passed by the respondent No.3, cancelling his appointment for the post of Patwari.

(2.) IT appears that pursuant to the advertisement dated 19/2/2013, inviting applications for the Direct Recruitment Patwari Competitive Examination, 2013, the petitioner had applied for the post of Patwari in the category of OBC. The petitioner having passed out the written examination, the respondent Collector, Ajmer had published the list of selected candidates, including the petitioner and he was called for counseling along with the documents. The respondent No.3 issued appointment order dated 8/1/2014 appointing the petitioner on the post of Patwari on probation for a period of two years and directed him to join the training for the said post from 8/1/2014. However, the Officer -in -charge Land Record, Ajmer passed an order on 7/2/2014, whereby the petitioner was directed to get himself medically examined before the Medical Board for Medical Examination of Government Jawahar Lal Nehru Hospital, Ajmer. The said medical board issued the certificate of 11/2/2014, assessing the disability of the petitioner to the extent of 40% component locomotor disability in right arm. However, the respondent No.3 again issued the notice to the petitioner on 23/4/2014 as to why his appointment should not be cancelled, the petitioner having been found to have disability to the extent of 40%. The petitioner replied to the said notice on 24/4/2014 to the effect that the assessment of medical jurist was not proper. However, the respondent No.3 passed the impugned order dated 14/8/2014, cancelling his appointment on the post of Patwari with immediate effect, on the ground that the petitioner was not fit to discharge his duties as Patwari.

(3.) THE respondent had filed the reply contending interalia that the petitioner had submitted the online application concealing the fact of his disability, though there was a rider in the advertisement regarding ineligibility for dispabled persons. It was also contended that the petitioner had applied under the special category of ex -servicemen quota and not under OBC category. The petitioner having concealed his disability, the concerned respondent was unaware of his disability, and therefore had called him for the training. It is also contended that the appointment of the petitioner was on a probation subject to verification of the health certificate and character certificate, and on verification of the documents, it was found that the petitioner was suffering from disability to the extent of 40%. The petitioner therefore was directed to get himself medically examined before the Medical Board, which had not found the petitioner fit as a general candidate. It is further contended that as per the Rules, the candidate should have sound physical and mental health, and there was no quota for physical handicapped person for the said post, and hence the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled after giving him opportunity of hearing.