- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41874-DB WP No. 27041 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 27041 OF 2023 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: SMT ARCHANA REENA W/O VINAYA RAJU D J AGED 32 YEARS WORKING AS VILLAGE ACCOUTNANT NAGATHIHALLI CIRCLE BINDIGANAVILE HOBLI NAGAMANGALA TLAUK MANDYA DITRICT RA/T M DASAPURA VILLAGE AKKANAHALLI POST CHANANRAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573116. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R B SADASIVAPPA.,ADVOCATE) Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41874-DB WP No. 27041 of 2023 AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA - 571 401 2. THE TAHISILDAR NAGAMANGALA TALUK NAGAMANGALA MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA., AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE FINAL ORDER DATED 17.11.2023 PASSED BY THE KSAT IN APPLICATION No. 1485/2023 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION No. 1485/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A FILED BY THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41874-DB WP No. 27041 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD) The petitioner, who is appointed as a Village Accountant in the year 2012 against the post reserved for persons with disabilities, has unsuccessfully called in question the Notice dated 24.03.2023 issued by the second respondent with the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal [for short, ‘the Tribunal’] in Application No.1485/2023; and the second respondent has issued this Notice calling upon the petitioner to appear for audiological evaluation with the All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Manasa Gangothri, Mysuru [AIISH] observing that though the petitioner was called upon to appear for the evaluation earlier she has remained absent. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41874-DB WP No. 27041 of 2023 2. The Tribunal, after referring to the different annexures relied upon by the petitioner to bolster her case against the impugned notice, has opined that if the petitioner really suffers Bilateral Moderate Severe Sensory Neural Hearing Loss, there should be no impediment for her to appear for evaluation and that the petitioner cannot avail any advantage of the Disability Certificate issued to her at the time of her appointment in the year 2012 to overwhelm the impugned notice. 3. Sri R.B. Sadashivappa, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner's grievance with the Tribunal's refusal to examine such grievance must be considered by this Court in the backdrop of certain circumstances to ensure that the petitioner is not subjected to needless prosecution, and the learned counsel underscores: [a] The petitioner as part of the documents submitted for - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41874-DB WP No. 27041 of 2023 appointment has filed a Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board, Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital and that this Certificate is issued by a Board of Directors with the hospital which is designated as a Certifying Authority under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. [b] The authorities have declared the successful completion of the probationary period in 2014, and the petitioner is called upon to undergo another evaluation in the year 2018. The petitioner is subjected to such evaluation, and this time with the Medical Board, Victoria Hospital, another Certifying Authority under the Act. [c] This authority, after due evaluation by the Consulting Surgeon and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41874-DB WP No. 27041 of 2023 audiological evaluation at NIMHANS has certified that the petitioner has a hearing disability of 56%. [d] The impugned notice is issued despite the afore evaluation, and the petitioner has filed different representations requesting against being subjected to another evaluation. 4. Sri Vikas Rojipura, the learned Additional Government Advocate, submits that [i] the impugned notice is issued in the light of the fact that it has come to the knowledge of the authorities that many have falsely claimed hearing impairment for securing employment and notices as issued to the petitioner have also been issued to those; [ii] the petitioner having voluntarily appeared with the AIISH, Mysuru for evaluation, has not filed necessary papers for completion of the evaluation; and [iii] this, as - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41874-DB WP No. 27041 of 2023 underscored by the Tribunal, demonstrates that the petitioner may be deliberate in avoiding evaluation. 5. 5. Sri Vikas Rojipura also canvasses that this Court may consider the fact that when the Certifying Authority issues a Disability Certificate as contemplated under the Act in due compliance with the procedure prescribed, unless such certificate is annulled in appeal under Section 59 of the Act, the effect of the Certificate may not be undermined; and the learned Additional Government Advocate submits that if this Court is inclined to interfere because the Disability Certificates issued in the year 2012 and 2018 are not called in question, this Court may reserve liberty to the concerned to call in question those Certificates under Section 59, as a precursor to the possible disciplinary proceedings if it is borne out that the petitioner has indeed obtained appointment as a person with disabilities though she suffers no hearing impairment. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41874-DB WP No. 27041 of 2023 6. The questions for consideration in the light of the afore submissions is: Whether this Court must intervene with the Tribunal's order dated 17.11.2023 and the notice dated 24.03.2023, and if this Court must so intervene, should authorities be reserved with liberty to avail remedy under Section 59 of the Act. 7. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner is admitted to appointment in the year 2012 as against a post reserved for persons with disabilities because of her claim that she has a hearing impairment and she is admitted to such employment based on the Disability Certificate dated 19.11.2005 which is valid for ten years. This Certificate is issued by the Board of Doctors with Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospitals, Bengaluru. The Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospitals is designated a certifying authority as contemplated under the Act - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41874-DB WP No. 27041 of 2023 subject to the procedure as contemplated under Section 58(3) of the Act. 8. The Section 58(3) of the Act stipulates that Certificate of Disability issued under this Section shall be valid across the country and if any person is aggrieved by the issuance of such certificate, is given recourse to the appellate remedy under Section 59 of the Act. If the appellate authority, as and when an aggrieved person avails such remedy, will have to decide whether that Certificate of Disability is duly issued. This recourse must be availed even by the employer and on its own cannot come to any conclusion with the certificate is wrongly issued or should not have been issued. The impugned notice is without recourse to Section 58 of the Act, and hence, cannot be sustained. 9. The additional reason will be the fact that at the respondents' insistence the petitioner has - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41874-DB WP No. 27041 of 2023 undergone a further evaluation in the year 2018, and even on this occasion the petitioner was evaluated by the Doctors from NIMHANS Bengaluru and consultant ENT Surgeon from Victoria Hospital [a designated certifying authority]. Even this certificate affirms that the petitioner has a hearing impairment of 56%. This Court, in the peculiarities of the case, is of the view that the impugned notice cannot be sustained and that the Tribunal in refusing to exercise its jurisdiction has overlooked the material circumstances. 10. The decision to issue notice to the petitioner is because she has refused to participate when called upon for an audiological evaluation by AIISH in the years 2018 and 2023. In the year 2018, she has presented herself with the AIISH for audiological evaluation but has not submitted her papers with the medical practitioner officers for evaluation. On receipt of notice in the year 2023, she - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41874-DB WP No. 27041 of 2023 has not presented herself justifying her non- participation in the evaluation citing reasons such as that she was not keeping well at the relevant time. 11. This Court finds considerable force in the submissions by Sri Vikas Rojipura that if indeed the petitioner does not suffer from hearing impairment but has contrived certificates in that effect that would tantamount to securing employment by impermissible means. Therefore, the respondents therefore must be at liberty to avail remedy as permitted in law but subject to all just exceptions, and without prejudice to the petitioners’ defences that would be available in the event such proceedings are initiated. As such, the following: ORDER The petition is allowed quashing the impugned notice dated 24.03.2023 [Annexure- A11] and the Tribunal's order dated 17.11.2023 in Application No.1485/2023 [Annexure-A] but - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41874-DB WP No. 27041 of 2023 with liberties to the authorities as aforesaid and without prejudice to the petitioner's defence if in case such remedy is availed. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M. NADAF) JUDGE NV,SA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19