1 CGHC010202712026 2026:CGHC:32187-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 614 of 2026 1 - Kailash Chandra Patel S/o Late Shri Amit Lal Patel Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Kumhari, Post Singhanpuri, Police Station And Tahsil Basna, Civil And Revenue District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh (Resp. No. 4 In Writ Petition) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector, Mahasamund District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 4 - Premlal S/o Shri Vasudev Aged About 45 Years Caste Dhobi, R/o Gaurtek, Police Station And Tehsil Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh (Resp. No. 1 To 4 Were Resp. In Writ Petition) 5 - Lakhan Bihari Patel S/o Late Shri Amit Lal Patel Aged About 46 Years Occupation Service, Assistant Teacher (L.B.) R/o Village Kumhari, Post Singhanpuri, Police Station And Tahsil Basna, Civil And Revenue, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh (Petitioner In Writ Petition) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ujjawal Agrawal, Advocate. For State : Mr. Praveen Das, Additional Advocate General For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate. ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.07.29 12:06:07 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 28/07/2026 1. Heard Mr. Ujjawal Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the Respondent/State, Mr. Sunil Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 5. 2. The appellants have filed this writ appeal against the order dated 01.04.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 2241 of 2020 (Lakhan Bihari Patel vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/respondent No.5 and quashed the order dated 13.08.2020 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Saraipali, District Mahasamund. Thereafter, the writ appellants have preferred the instant appeal before this Court with the following prayer:- “A. To set aside the judgment and order dated 01.04.2026 passed by the learned Single Bench of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(C) No.2241 of 2020; B. Further be pleased to dismiss the writ petition filed by the petitioner bearing no. W.P.(C) No.2241 of 2020, in the ends of justice.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that Respondent No.5/writ petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III in the year 2010 under the Physically Handicapped (PH) category on the basis of a disability certificate showing 45.4% hearing impairment. The appellant lodged a complaint alleging that the writ petitioner had secured the appointment 3 by using a forged/manipulated disability certificate obtained by getting another person medically examined and affixing his own photograph on the certificate. Acting on the complaint, the Collector, Mahasamund directed the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Saraipali to conduct an inquiry. During the inquiry, notices were issued to the parties, replies were obtained, and reports were called for from the competent medical authorities. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical and Health Officer, Mahasamund reported that although the disability certificate had been issued by the District Medical Board, it could not be verified whether the photograph affixed thereon belonged to the person who had actually undergone medical examination, and further reported that subsequent audiometric and BERA tests conducted in the year 2018 did not reveal the hearing disability claimed by the writ petitioner. Upon consideration of the material on record, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), by order/recommendation dated 13.08.2020, observed that the writ petitioner did not suffer from the alleged 45.4% hearing disability and that the disability certificate appeared to have been procured by getting another person medically examined, and accordingly recommended initiation of further proceedings in accordance with law. Aggrieved thereby, the writ petitioner preferred W.P.(C) No.2241 of 2020, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 01.04.2026 by quashing the order dated 13.08.2020 on the ground that the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) lacked jurisdiction to examine the validity of the disability certificate and that the procedure prescribed under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 had not been followed. Aggrieved 4 by the said judgment and order, the appellant has preferred the present writ appeal. 4. Mr. Ujjawal Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that the learned Single Judge has erred in law in allowing the writ petition and quashing the report/order dated 13.08.2020 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Saraipali. He would contend that the said report was merely recommendatory in nature and did not finally adjudicate or determine any civil rights of Respondent No.5/writ petitioner, nor did it cancel his disability certificate or terminate his services. It merely recommended that appropriate action be taken by the competent authority on the basis of the material collected during the inquiry. He would further submit that the inquiry was conducted pursuant to the directions of the Collector on a complaint alleging fraud, impersonation and misuse of a disability certificate for securing appointment under the Physically Handicapped category. According to him, the inquiry was only a preliminary administrative fact-finding exercise and not an adjudication regarding the validity or cancellation of the disability certificate. It is further submitted that Respondent No.5 had participated in the inquiry proceedings, filed his reply and documents, and was afforded full opportunity of hearing without raising any objection to the jurisdiction of the inquiry authority. 5. Learned counsel would further submit that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the allegations in the present case were not confined to medical assessment but related to fraudulent procurement of public employment by impersonation and misuse of a disability certificate. The reports submitted by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief 5 Medical and Health Officer, Mahasamund, along with the subsequent audiometric and BERA examinations, raised serious doubts regarding the genuineness of the disability claim and the identity of the person who had undergone the medical examination. He would contend that the learned Single Judge erred in relying upon the Standard Operating Procedure of the year 2025, though the inquiry had been initiated in the year 2017-18 and the report was submitted on 13.08.2020, and also misapplied the decisions relating to the rights of persons with disabilities, which are distinguishable on facts. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge exceeded the permissible scope of judicial review by re-appreciating the factual material collected during a preliminary administrative inquiry and quashing a recommendatory report, thereby foreclosing a lawful inquiry into serious allegations of fraud in securing public employment. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned judgment and order be set aside and the present writ appeal be allowed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State would submit that the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition after considering the entire material available on record and the settled principles of law governing the field. He would submit that the inquiry conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Saraipali into the validity and genuineness of the disability certificate was without jurisdiction, as the authority was neither empowered under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 nor possessed the requisite medical expertise to examine or discredit a disability certificate issued by the competent Medical Board. He would further contend that the findings recorded in the inquiry report were primarily founded upon 6 subsequent medical examinations conducted in the year 2018, which could not invalidate a disability certificate issued in the year 2010 in the absence of any proceedings before the competent authority. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the statutory procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules had not been followed and that the impugned report/order dated 13.08.2020 could not be sustained in law. Accordingly, he would submit that the impugned judgment does not warrant any interference by this Court in the present writ appeal and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.5/writ petitioner, would support the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge and submit that the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Saraipali had no jurisdiction or statutory competence to inquire into the validity or genuineness of a disability certificate issued by the duly constituted District Medical Board, and therefore, the inquiry culminating in the report/order dated 13.08.2020 was wholly without authority of law. He would contend that the disability certificate issued in favour of Respondent No.5 in the year 2010 has neither been cancelled nor declared invalid by the competent authority under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the Rules framed thereunder, and as such, the findings recorded by the inquiry authority were based merely on conjectures and surmises. It is further submitted that the subsequent audiometric and BERA tests conducted in the year 2018 could not invalidate or discredit the disability certificate issued in the year 2010, nor could the inquiry authority substitute its opinion for that of the Medical Board. He would argue that the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the mandatory statutory procedure was not 7 followed and that an authority lacking jurisdiction could not undertake an inquiry into the disability certificate or recommend criminal action on that basis. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference in the present writ appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the record of the case with utmost circumspection. 9. The only question which arises for consideration in the present writ appeal is whether the learned Single Judge committed any error in quashing the order/report dated 13.08.2020 passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), Saraipali. Upon a careful consideration of the rival submissions and the material placed on record, we find no infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. It is not in dispute that the disability certificate in favour of Respondent No.5 was issued by the duly constituted District Medical Board under the statutory framework governing persons with disabilities. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the Rules framed thereunder provide a complete mechanism regarding issuance, verification and cancellation of disability certificates. The determination of the validity or genuineness of such a certificate is a matter falling within the exclusive domain of the competent Medical Board or such authority as is empowered under the statute. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), being a revenue authority, neither possessed the statutory competence nor the requisite medical expertise to undertake an inquiry into the correctness of the disability certificate and record findings touching upon the medical condition of Respondent No.5. The learned Single 8 Judge has, therefore, rightly held that the inquiry suffered from inherent lack of jurisdiction. 10. We are also unable to accept the contention of the appellants that the order dated 13.08.2020 was merely recommendatory and, therefore, interference by the writ Court was unwarranted. Even though the report was recommendatory in nature, it contained categorical findings that Respondent No.5 had obtained appointment by fraud and impersonation and further recommended initiation of criminal proceedings against him. Such adverse findings, if recorded by an authority lacking jurisdiction, cannot be sustained merely because they are recommendatory. A perusal of the material relied upon by the inquiry authority would show that the reports of the Civil Surgeon-cum- Chief Medical and Health Officer did not conclusively hold that the disability certificate was forged or fabricated; rather, they merely stated that the identity of the person medically examined could not be verified and that subsequent audiometric and BERA tests conducted in the year 2018 did not reveal the hearing disability claimed by Respondent No.5. Such material, by itself, could not have formed the basis for recording a definitive finding of fraud or impersonation, particularly when the disability certificate issued in the year 2010 had neither been cancelled nor declared invalid by the competent authority in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules. 11. We also find substance in the conclusion recorded by the learned Single Judge that the statutory procedure contemplated under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 had not been followed before embarking upon an inquiry into the genuineness of the disability certificate. The legislative scheme makes it abundantly clear that any 9 dispute regarding the validity of a disability certificate must be examined by the competent medical authority in accordance with the procedure prescribed under law. The inquiry conducted by the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), founded upon subsequent medical examinations conducted several years after issuance of the disability certificate, could not legally discredit the certificate issued in the year 2010. In the absence of any determination by the competent Medical Board or any statutory authority, the findings recorded by the inquiry authority were rightly held to be unsustainable. The learned Single Judge has also rightly observed that an authority lacking jurisdiction could not recommend initiation of criminal proceedings on the basis of such an inquiry. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is based on a correct appreciation of the facts, the statutory provisions and the law governing the field. We do not find any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference in exercise of our appellate jurisdiction. 13. Consequently, the present writ appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok