2026:HHC:23775 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 5703 of 2023 Decided on: 22.06.2026 Virender Kumar and others …….Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes _____________________________________________________ For the petitioners : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sparsh Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Additional Advocate General with Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General for respondents-State. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have inter alia prayed for the following relief:- “It is, therefore that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents to offer appointments to the petitioner in furtherance of the advertisement dated 13.10.2022 as the names of the petitioners stood recommended on account of counseling which was held on 20.12.2022 and 21.12.2022, with all consequential benefits of pay, arrears, seniority etc on and with effect from July, 2022 along with arrears and interest @ 9% p.a..” 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:23775 2. The case of the petitioners is that a process was initiated by the respondents to fill up the posts of TGT(Arts), TGT (Non- Medical) and TGT (Medical) belonging to the physically disabled persons. The petitioners being eligible to participate in the process under the said category, responded to the advertisement, i.e. advertisement dated 13.10.2020. It is further their case that the petitioners were called upon to attend the counseling vide letter dated 09.12.2022. The counseling for physically disabled candidates was held on 20.12.2022 and 21.12.2022. It is further the case of the petitioners that they found place in merit in their respective categories but there was delay in the offer of appointment. It is further their case that the respondents issued a communication dated 07.07.2023, calling upon the petitioners to appear for a fresh medical examination before the issuance of the appointment letter, which act of the respondents, as per the petitioners, was absolutely arbitrary and discriminatory and it is in this backdrop that the petitioners have approached this Court, praying for the reliefs already enumerated herein above. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has argued that as the petitioners had participated in the process reserved for appointment against the quota of physically disabled persons and they had submitted all the requisite documents in this regard, including the physical disability certificates, there was no occasion for the respondents to have directed the petitioners to appear before 3 2026:HHC:23775 the Medical Board again for fresh medical examination. He submitted that this was completely arbitrary and undermined the certificates already issued by the Authorities. Learned Senior Counsel in the alternative submitted that the petitioners shall appear for the medical test but then, the same be conducted by applying the technique, which was being used at the relevant time when earlier certificates were issued. 4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the present petition deserves to be rejected. He submitted that for appointment against the post reserved for physically disabled persons, petitioner No. 1-Mr.Virender Kumar was falling under the multiple disabilities category for the post of TGT (Non Medical), petitioner No. 2-Ms. Kritika Verma under the hearing impaired category for the post of TGT (Non Medical) and petitioner No. 3-Mr.Surinder Singh under the multiple disabilities category for the post of TGT (Arts). Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that in terms of the Government letter dated 06.01.2022, the Government had directed to conduct fresh medical examination of the persons with disabilities, before joining the job, from the competent authority so that unscrupulous persons should not secure employment against the posts reserved for persons with disabilities on the basis of false medical certificates and veracity of medical certificates submitted by the candidates be ensured by the Department. Petitioners and others were directed to appear before 4 2026:HHC:23775 the State Medical Examination Board of Government Hospital Deen Dayal Upadhyay, Rippan, for fresh medical examination vide letter dated 07.07.2023. He submitted that in compliance to the said communication, four candidates appeared before the Medical Board and their medical certificates were found genuine and appointment was offered to them. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that thereafter the Department vide letter dated 25.07.2023, requested the remaining seven candidates to appear before the Medical Board but till the date of filing of the reply, no information was received from the candidates including the petitioners. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that instructions dated 06.01.2022 were issued by the Government to bring transparency in the appointment of physically disabled persons so that unscrupulous persons should not secure employment against posts reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities on the basis of false medical certificates. He also submitted that if the medical certificates of the petitioners were genuine, they should have appeared before the Medical Board like the other candidates, who indeed were also subsequently offered appointment. Learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that non-appearance of the petitioners before the medical board demonstrates that there was some issue with the disability certificates on the strength of which they intend to secure appointment. Accordingly, he submitted that as there is no merit in the present petition, the same be dismissed. 5 2026:HHC:23775 5. I have heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Advocate General and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith. 6. The facts, as mentioned hereinabove, are not much in dispute. It is a matter of record that the reason as to why the petitioners have not been offered appointment is that they failed to appear before the Medical Board for fresh medical examination. Why so, the petitioners are the best persons to answer the same. 7. This Court is of the considered view that conducting fresh medical examination of persons with disability before they were made to join the job from the competent authority to ensure that unscrupulous persons are not offered employment against the posts reserved for persons with disabilities, cannot be said to be an arbitrary and discriminatory step on the part of the department. Further, it is not as if it were only the petitioners who were directed to appear for a fresh medical examination and other persons were offered appointment on the strength of disability certificates earlier submitted by them. 8. This Court also concurs with the submission of learned Additional Advocate General that had there been no issue with regard to the genuineness of the medical certificates of the petitioners, there would not have been any hesitation on their part for appearing before the Medical Board for their medical 6 2026:HHC:23775 examination. The non-appearance of the petitioners before the Medical Board for fresh medical examination raises doubts over the authenticity of the certificates on the basis of which they were seeking appointment. 9. This Court hastens to add that their participation for medical examination would have not only eroded any doubt about the genuineness of the certificates earlier issued to them but would have also strengthened their claim for appointment against the quota reserved for physically disabled persons because there is no denial to the contention of the State that four candidates, who did appear for medical examination before the medical Board, their certificates were found to be genuine and they were offered appointment. This demonstrates that there indeed was transparency at the level of the department and State as far as the appointments under the quota are concerned. This Court does not find any arbitrariness or discrimination in the act of the Department of calling upon the candidates including the petitioners to appear for fresh medical examination. 10. As far as the contention of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are willing to appear before the Medical Board for their fresh medical examination but then their medical examination should be on the basis of same technique on the basis whereof initially medical certificates were issued to them, is concerned, the same is rejected. It is not for this Court or the 7 2026:HHC:23775 petitioners to say that as to which medical technique should be adopted by the medical experts for determining the disability of a person appearing before them for medical examination. Besides this, now it is too late otherwise also to pass any order in favour of the petitioners. The appointments stood made somewhere in the year 2023 and today we are in the year 2026. Therefore, in light of the above discussion, as the present petition sans any merit, the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge June 22, 2026 (narender)