1 2025:CGHC:27533-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 366 of 2025 Jitendra Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Pekhram Sahu Aged About 32 Years Working As Rural Agriculture Extension Officer, Office Of Senior Agriculture Development Officer, Block Takhatpur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - Union of India Through Secretary, Department of Persons With Disabilities, Ministry Of Social Justice And Empowerment, Government of India, New Delhi. 2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Agriculture Development And Farmer Welfare And Bio - Technology, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Government of C.G., Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Secretary, General Administration Department, Government Of C.G., Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Director, Directorate Of Agriculture, Block - 2, Second Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 6 - Divisional Joint Director Agriculture Division, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 7 - Deputy Director Agriculture, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 8 - Collector Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 9 - Sub-Divisional Agriculture Officer Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.06.25 17:15:21 +0530 2 10 - Civil Surgeon-Cum-Chief Hospital Superintendent District - Hospital, Mungeli, District - Mungeli (C.G.) 11 - Civil Surgeon-Cum-Chief Hospital Superintendent District Hospital, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Advocate General assisted by Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 25.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State. 2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the interim order dated 02.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.7160/2023, whereby the learned Single Judge has modified the interim order and granted liberty to the respondents to proceed against the appellant and other selected candidates but they have been restrained from taking a final decision without the leave of the Court. Further, a direction was issued for the medical examination of the appellant and other similarly selected candidates strictly in accordance 3 with the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (for short “Act of 2016”) in a fair and transparent manner. The Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare has been directed to constitute a State Medical Board for examination of the appellant and other selected candidates and to submit its report. 3. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the parties that in an identical matter, this Court had dismissed Writ Appeal No.338/2025 vide order dated 27.05.2025 observing as follows :- “7. Admittedly, there is a dispute with regard to the disability certificate issued in favour of the appellant. The appellant was appointed to the post of Assistant Veterinary Surgeon on the basis of the disability certificate. A complaint was made and the certificate of the appellant and other selected candidates was examined by a three member committee. A report was submitted and findings were recorded in favour of the appellant and other selected candidates. It appears that the disability certificates and persons suffering from disabilities were not examined by the Medical Board or any expert body, therefore, the department issued show- cause notices to the appellant and other selected candidates and those notices were challenged by filing various writ petitions. The 4 Writ Court vide order dated 21.6.2023 passed a protective order in favour of the appellant and other selected candidates. Vide order dated 2.5.2025, the writ Court permitted the State to continue with the proceedings but restrained them from passing the final order and in the meanwhile, directed the Secretary, Department of Health of Family Welfare to constitute a State Medical Board for examination of the appellant and other selected candidates and to submit a report. 9. The appellant has not assailed the interim order passed in the writ petition dated 2.5.2025 rather he has sought a part stay, which cannot be granted. A perusal of the order dated 2.5.2025 would show that the interim order is still operating in favour of the appellant. No order has been passed affecting his rights, therefore, the writ appeal is not maintainable. The appellant would be at liberty to raise all the grounds available to him before the writ Court. 10. Accordingly, in our opinion, the present appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.” They further submitted that since the facts and issue involved in the 5 present case is identical to that of Writ Appeal No.338/2025, this appeal may also be disposed off in the same terms. 4. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to Writ Appeal No.338/2025, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in Writ Appeal No.338/2025. 5. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 27.05.2025 passed in Writ Appeal No.338/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu