1 2025:CGHC:22787-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 349 of 2025 1 - Deepak Kumar Rajput S/o Shri Ashok Kumar Rajput Aged About 32 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As Deepak Singh Rajput In W.P.S. No. 2101/2025) Working As Rural Agriculture Extension Officer, Block Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa, R/o House No. 2602, Ward No. 14, Opposite Of Gitanjali Park Gate, Maharshi School Road, Mangla, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Bhushan Prasad Pandey S/o Shri Bhimsen Pandey Aged About 36 Years Working As Rural Agriculture Extension Officer, Block Bamhnidih, District Janjgir-Champa, R/o House No. 62 A, Abhishek Vihar Phase-02, Mangla, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Anand Singh Rajput S/o Shri Bhola Ram Rajput Aged About 32 Years Working As Rural Agriculture Extension Officer, Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, R/o Village Jhaphal, Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Agriculture Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Secretary Health And Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Director Directorate Of Agriculture, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Deputy Director Of Agriculture District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.06.11 10:32:10 +0530 2 5 - Deputy Director Of Agriculture District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 6 - Deputy Director Of Agriculture District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh 7 - Civil Surgeon-Cum-Hospital Superintendent District Hospital, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 8 - Civil Surgeon-Cum-Hospital Superintendent District Hospital, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 9 - Shantanu Singh S/o Rajshekhar Singh Aged About 36 Years Working As Rural Agriculture Extension Officer, Block Bamhnidih, District Janjgir Champa, R/o Hardi (S), Tehsil Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh 10 - Somesh Singh S/o Late Shri Ujjain Singh Aged About 35 Years Working As Rural Agriculture Extension Officer, Block Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa, R/o House No. 155 Near Hanuman Mandir, Bamhnidih, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh 11 - Dhananjay Kumar Mahilane S/o Shri Pitamber Singh Aged About 36 Years Working As Rural Agriculture Extension Officer, Gharghoda, District Raigarh, R/o Village Teram, Gharghoda, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 12 - Rohit Patel S/o Shri Laxmi Narayan Patel Aged About 37 Years Working As Rural Agriculture Extension Officer, Bamhnidih, District - Janjgir-Champa, R/o Ward No. 13, Patel Para, Jurali, Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. and Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board 3 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 10.06.2025 1. The office has raised an objection that the writ appeal against an interim order is not maintainable. 2. Heard Mr. Anand Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for respondent/State as well as Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, learned counsel for respective respondents. 3. The appellant has filed this writ appeal with I.A. No.01/2025 i.e. application for grant of interim relief with following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this application and stay the effect and operation of the order dated 02.05.2025 passed in WPS No.2101/2025, till the final disposal of the instant case in the interest of justice.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are physically disable persons and as per the provision of person with disabilities act, 2016 (herein after called the Act, 2016 for brevity) and the Person with Disability (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 has been issued with disability certificate by the competent authority. The appellants have been selected and appointed in the post of Rural Agriculture Extension Officer vide order dated 09.02.2018. Both the selection process was by the CG Professional Examination Board and concerned department both have scrutinized and verified the 4 disability certificate of appellant and only thereafter the appellants have been appointed. One Chhattisgarh Divyang Seva Sangh has been persistently raising unfounded complaints before various departments of the State Government, causing the bona fide appointments of disabled individuals to be repeatedly questioned and harassed. The Chhattisgarh Divyang Seva Sangh had also filed a PIL before this Court bearing registration number W.P. (P.I.L.) No. 36/2023, wherein this Court directed the Chief Secretary to file a personal affidavit explaining why no positive steps have been taken to verify the physical disability certificates. In a complete misinterpretation of the order dated 24.04.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.(P.I.L.) 36/2023, the appellants, who are appointed under the Physical Disability quota, was once again directed to undergo verification of his disability. The appellants aggrieved by the issuance of the said direction approached this Court, and this Court had granted interim protection to the appellants by order dated 28.06.2023. The concerned Chief Secretary has also filed his personal affidavit in this regard and has clearly stated that the District Medical Board would be the competent authority, which shall consist of expert persons with respect to grant of such disability certificate. The said WPPIL 36/2023 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 12.12.2023. In the name of WP(PIL) No. 36/2023, the respondents have issued the notices dated 08.03.2025 along with the letter dated 05.03.2025 and notice dated 11.03.2025 by which 5 respondents have directed the appellants to get their disabilities certificate verified by State level Medical Board and also to obtain new disability certificate. The authorities are adamant that the Appellants must obtain a fresh disability certificate and submit himself for reexamination before the State Level Medical Board. Thus, against the arbitrary and malafide behaviour of the Respondent Authorities, the Appellants have approached this Court by way W.P.(S) No.2101/2025. This Court vide order dated 28.03.2025 in W.P.(S) no. 2101/2025 was pleased to direct that no coercive steps shall be taken against Appellants. 5. However, on 2.5.2025, the Writ Court 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 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. The appellant has challenged the order dated 2.5.2025 by filing this writ appeal. 6. With regard to the maintainability of the writ appeal, Mr. Shukla 6 would submit that the writ appeal is maintainable in light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Full Bench in the case of Ajay Jagarnath vs. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2017 CHHATTISGARH 45, wherein it is held that the order vitally affecting the right of the parties having bearing on the final adjudication, though interim at the interim stage is not pure interlocutory order and an appeal would lie against it. He would further submit that earlier the disability certificate of the appellants are duly verified by the expert committee and there is no need for re-examination or scrutiny of the said document. Therefore, there was no need for modification of the interim order granted on 28.03.2023. He would pray to allow the writ appeal. 7. On the other hand, learned Advocates appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the appellants. They would submit that the interim order/protection is still operating in favour of the appellants. It is argued that the Writ Court has issued a direction for the medical examination of the appellants and other similarly situated persons. They would contend that as there is no order affecting the rights of the appellants, this appeal is not maintainable. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the record. 9. Admittedly, there is a dispute with regard to the disability certificate issued in favour of the appellants. The appellants have 7 been selected and appointed in the post of Rural Agriculture Extension Officer vide order dated 09.02.2018. A complaint was made and the certificate of the appellants and other selected candidates were examined by a three member committee. A report was submitted and findings were recorded in favour of the appellants 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 appellants and other selected candidates and those notices were challenged by filing various writ petitions. The Writ Court vide order dated 28.03.2025 passed a protective order in favour of the appellants 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 appellants and other selected candidates and to submit a report. 10. The appellants have not assailed the interim order passed in the writ petition dated 2.5.2025 rather they have 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 appellants. No order has been passed affecting his rights, 8 therefore, the writ appeal is not maintainable. The appellants would be at liberty to raise all the grounds available to him before the writ Court. 11. Accordingly, in our opinion, the present appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet