1 CGHC010283632026 2026:CGHC:31651 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3833 of 2026 1 - Ramkumar Nayak S/o Shri Jagannath Nayak Aged About 24 Years R/o 174, Ward No.06, Village- Gaurtek Tehsil Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Its Secretary Department Of Higher Education Block-03 Second Thrid Floor, Indravati Bhawan Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Chhattisgarh 2 - Commissioner Directorate Of Higher Education Department Of Higher Education Block-03 Second Thrid Floor Indravati Bhawan Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh, 3 - Joint Director And Hospital Superintendent Government Medical College And Hospital Mahasamund Address- At Village- Kharora District- Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Late Shri Jaidev Satpathi Government College, Basna Through Its Principal Having Registered Address At Basna Channat Road Basna District- Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 5 - District Medical Board District- Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 6 - Social Welfare Department Through- Its Secretary, Secretariat Kutchery Chowk District- Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioners :- Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate For State :- Mr. R.K. Gupta, Addl. A.G. VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 24.07.2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records leading to passing of the impugned notice dated 04.06.2026 (Annexure P-1), for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.2) The Hon'ble Court may further kindly be pleased to quash the impugned notice dated 04.06.2026 (Annexure P-1), whereby the petitioner has been directed to produce the permanent disability certificate within 45 days; alternatively The Hon'ble Court may further kindly be pleased to direct the District Medical Board, Mahasamund to issue permanent disability certificateto the Petitioner as per Rule 18 of Right of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 within stipulated time; 10.3) Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. 10.4) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice. An affidavit in support of is filed herewith.” 3 2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the notice dated 04.06.2026 issued by respondent No. 4, whereby the petitioner has been directed to submit a permanent disability certificate within 45 days. The respondent No. 2 issued an advertisement dated 05.10.2023 inviting applications for appointment to the post of Laboratory Assistant and other posts in various Government Colleges in the State of Chhattisgarh. The petitioner participated in the selection process, appeared in the examination held on 03.08.2025, and was declared successful. His name was included at Serial No. 336 in the final select list published on 25.03.2026. Thereafter, an appointment order dated 15.04.2026 was issued, pursuant to which the petitioner joined the post of Laboratory Assistant in the office of respondent No. 4. The petitioner is a person with benchmark disability suffering from Congenital Talipes Equinovarus since birth. A disability certificate assessing his disability at 45% was initially issued by the District Medical Board, Mahasamund on 11.06.2014 and was subsequently renewed on 28.06.2017, 01.07.2020 and 12.07.2023. According to the petitioner, the degree of disability has remained unchanged for the last twelve years and the disability certificates issued by the competent Medical Board continue to remain valid under the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017. After joining service, respondent No. 4 issued the impugned notice dated 04.06.2026 4 directing the petitioner to produce a permanent disability certificate within 45 days, purportedly in view of the notification dated 25.02.2026. Aggrieved by the said notice, the petitioner has approached this Court contending that the requirement of producing a permanent disability certificate has been imposed after completion of the recruitment process and appointment, and that such a condition cannot be introduced retrospectively by applying the notification dated 25.02.2026 to a recruitment initiated pursuant to the advertisement dated 05.10.2023. The petitioner has, therefore, challenged the legality and validity of the impugned notice. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the notice dated 04.06.2026 issued by the Principal, Late Shri Jaidev Satpathi Government College, Basna, whereby the petitioner has been directed to obtain and produce a permanent disability certificate within a period of 45 days, failing which appropriate action would be taken against him. It is submitted that, immediately upon receipt of the said notice, the petitioner approached the District Medical Board, Mahasamund for issuance of a permanent disability certificate. However, despite his application, the competent Medical Board has not issued the permanent disability certificate till date. It is contended that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer on account of the inaction of the District Medical Board, particularly when he has already taken all necessary steps for obtaining the requisite certificate. Learned 5 counsel further submits that Rule 18 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 contemplates issuance of a permanent disability certificate by the competent Medical Authority in cases where there is no likelihood of variation in the degree of disability over time. Since the issuance of such certificate is entirely within the domain of the Medical Board, the petitioner cannot be penalized for the delay on the part of the competent authority. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned notice be quashed or, in the alternative, the respondents be directed not to take any coercive action against the petitioner until the District Medical Board takes a decision on his application for issuance of a permanent disability certificate. 4. Learned State counsel submits that under Rule 18 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017, the District Medical Board is competent to issue a permanent disability certificate in appropriate cases. It is submitted that if the petitioner approaches the District Medical Board along with the notice dated 04.06.2026 and fulfils the prescribed requirements, there is no reason for the Medical Board to decline issuance of a permanent disability certificate, provided the petitioner is otherwise found eligible in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the competent Medical Board shall consider the petitioner's application and take an appropriate decision in accordance with the provisions of the Rules. Learned State counsel further submits that the District Medical Board ordinarily holds its sittings on Wednesdays and Fridays, and that upon completion of the requisite formalities and examination of the petitioner, the process of issuance of the disability certificate generally takes about 7 to 10 days. 6 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Upon consideration of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the material placed on record, this Court is of the opinion that the grievance of the petitioner is essentially that, despite having approached the District Medical Board for issuance of a permanent disability certificate pursuant to the notice dated 04.06.2026, no decision has yet been taken by the competent authority. Since the issuance of a permanent disability certificate falls within the exclusive domain of the District Medical Board, this Court is not inclined to examine the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding the nature or extent of his disability. 7. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case or the entitlement of the petitioner to a permanent disability certificate, respondent No.5 – District Medical Board, Mahasamund, is directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of his earlier disability certificates, which have been periodically renewed from time to time, and after conducting such medical examination as may be required under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017, take an appropriate decision regarding issuance of a permanent disability certificate, strictly in accordance with law. 7 8. The petitioner shall appear before the District Medical Board, Mahasamund on 29.07.2026 along with a copy of this order, the impugned notice dated 04.06.2026 and all relevant medical records. Upon his appearance, the District Medical Board shall examine the petitioner and pass an appropriate order expeditiously, preferably within 7-10 days from the date of such examination. 9. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's claim or his entitlement to a permanent disability certificate. The District Medical Board shall independently assess the petitioner's disability and take a decision in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions. 10. Till the District Medical Board takes the aforesaid decision and communicates the same to the petitioner, respondent No.4 shall not take any coercive action against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned notice dated 04.06.2026. 11. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. 12. No order as to costs. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha