[2026:RJ-JP:10391] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4253/2026 Kamlesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Anant Ram Sharma, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Village Post Nangal Chapa Via Paperdha, Tehsil Dausa, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Kota Central Co-Operative Bank Limited, Kota Head Office Ocf-1, Sector-Ii, Srinathpura, Kota, Rajasthan Through Its Managing Director. 2. The Branch Manager, Kota Central Co-Operative Bank Limited, Branch Office Itawa District Kota. ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Laxmi Kant Malpura For Respondent : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 12/03/2026 1. Instant writ petition is filed with following prayer:- a) By an appropriate writ, 0rder and direction in the nature thereof the impugned order of suspension dated 23.02.2026 and action of respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents may kindly be directed to revoke the suspension and reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits from the date of suspension. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment in case of Ramprakash Kharlwa Vs. The Director, Elementary Education and Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15370/2025, and submits that the petitioner is having a [2026:RJ-JP:10391] (2 of 7) [CW-4253/2026] benchmark disability of more than 40% and same has been assessed by the Competent Authority, but the respondent No.1 is going in haste with a malicious motive and taking action against the petitioner, so as to deprive petitioner from the job. He further submits that petitioner is ready to undergo a fresh reassessment as prescribed under Chapter X of the RPwD Act, 2016, but till the time no coercive steps be initiated against him. 3. Having considered the submission and also the material placed on record, the controversy in the instant case related to assessment/reassessment of the disability of the petitioner and the petitioner has claimed bench mark disability as prescribed under Section 2(r) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (In short " the RPwD Act, 2016 or Act of 2016"). 4. This Court has considered identical issue in bunch of petitions, wherein lead matter was Ramprakash Kharlwa Vs. The Director, Elementary Education and Ors. (supra). While deciding the issue, we have observed as under:- 56. The issue remains some of the petitioners, already in Government service or who have completed their probation and confirmed, whether in such circumstances, a full-fledged inquiry under the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958, is required before taking any action. The judgments referred herein-above, including the judgment in the case of Amrit Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand (supra), clearly held that when somebody secures a job without possessing the proper qualification, it is not necessary to hold a full-fledged inquiry. Rule 19 of the CCA Rules specifically provides for dispensing with an inquiry where it is not possible. [2026:RJ-JP:10391] (3 of 7) [CW-4253/2026] 57. In the present case, when somebody obtains a job on the basis of a fake or false certificate claiming to be a person with disabilities, then there is no protection for such individual(s) under the law. The State Government or the appointing authority may terminate services of such person after recording reasons in detail, and nobody has a right to continue on a post which is not meant for him/her. Thus, there is no protection of law for a person who has secured a job on the basis of a fake or false certificate, and the duty to take action lies upon the State Government, or the department concerned. 58. Again, there is a question whether criminal action is required to be taken or not, is within the domain of the department concerned or the State Government. However, if somebody commits a crime, he is liable for criminal prosecution, and thus there is no protection for individual(s) who do not have a benchmark disability, but still procured a certificate to show a benchmark disability. The disability has to be assessed on the basis of the guidelines as issued by the Government of India under Sections 56 of the RPWD Act, and it is sufficient to draw a conclusion that certificate issued only in accordance with Chapter-X of RPwD Act are valid and legal for all purpose. 59. In view of discussions made herein-above, the State Government is under a constitutional obligation in providing equal protection, as provided under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and bound to follow the doctrine of reasonable accommodation while considering the case of any individual who is declared as a person with disabilities under the [2026:RJ-JP:10391] (4 of 7) [CW-4253/2026] RPwD Act, 2016. At the same time, the State Government is also duty-bound to prevent misuse of the provisions of the RPwD Act, 2016 by any individual, with aim to usurp the employment opportunities meant for persons with benchmark disabilities. If the State Government fails in its constitutional obligation or omits to do any act in furtherance of the directions and duties as mandated under the RPwD Act, 2016, then they are liable for omissive discrimination. 60. The State Government or the recruiting agency has every right to assess or reassess the case of benchmark disability and direct the candidate(s) to undergo assessment or reassessment of disability in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government of India under Section 56 of the RPwD Act, 2016. The assessment has to be made by the designated certifying authorities as declared under Chapter X of the RPwD Act. A designated certifying authority cannot issue any certificate, which is not in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government of India under Section 56 of the RPwD Act, 2016. A designated certifying authority is not competent to issue a disability certificate beyond its jurisdiction, as determined by the State Government. 61. The State Government or the recruiting agency may direct anyone, whether an employee who secured a job on the basis of a disability certificate or a candidate who appeared to claim a reservation quota under the RPwD Act, 2016, to appear before any designated authority to assess or reassess the disability of such person. [2026:RJ-JP:10391] (5 of 7) [CW-4253/2026] 62. Thus, the writ petitions are disposed of in following manner:- (i) The petitioner(s) have no right to challenge the assessment or reassessment order issued by the State Government or the respondent(s) for reassessment of benchmark disability. No person is entitled to be considered for appointment on seat reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities, unless his/her benchmark disability is assessed as per Chapter-X of the RPwD Act, 2016. (ii) The respondent(s) are free to assess or reassess the benchmark disability of the petitioner(s) in accordance with the provisions of the RPwD Act, 2016, and such assessment shall be made in accordance with the guidelines framed by the Government of India in exercise of powers under Section 56 of the RPWD Act, 2016. (iii) Any certificate issued by any Medical Board or Medical Officer, not designated as a certifying authority under Section 57 of the RPwD Act, is invalid and illegal, and the same cannot be relied upon for availing any benefit under the RPwD Act, 2016 or the rules made thereunder. (iv) The respondent(s) including recruiting agencies are directed to ensure that the certification process conforms to the standards as prescribed by the Government of India under the RPwD Act, 2016 and the rules made thereunder. (v) The State Government is also under an obligation to notify the designated certifying authorities along with their jurisdiction for issuance of certificates under Section 2 (r), 2(s) or 2(t) to declare a person as having a disability or a [2026:RJ-JP:10391] (6 of 7) [CW-4253/2026] benchmark disability, or person with high support needs. (vi) After assessment or reassessment of in service candidate(s), if the respondent(s) find that the candidate does not have a benchmark disability as required under the Act of 2016, then they are free to take any action as discussed herein-above. (vii) If a candidate appears in a recruitment process on the basis of benchmark disability, then the recruiting agency is duty-bound to assess or reassess his benchmark disability through a designated certifying authority as notified under Section 57 of the RPwD Act, 2016, and such assessment has to be made strictly on the basis of guidelines issued by the Government of India under Section 56 of the RPwD Act, 2016. (viii) The petitioner(s) are not entitled to any protection under the law but any action against them shall be taken or initiated only after re- assessment of their benchmark disability under the directions of the respondent(s) by following the procedure as prescribed under Chapter X of the RPwD Act, 2016. 5. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the instant writ petition is disposed of in terms of directions dated 27.01.2026 in case of Ramprakash Kharlwa Vs. The Director, Elementary Education and Ors. (supra), the respondents are further directed to re-assess or assess, the bench mark disability of the petitioner in accordance with Chapter X of the RPwD Act, 2016 from a designated authority as designated under Section 57 of the RPwD Act, 2016. [2026:RJ-JP:10391] (7 of 7) [CW-4253/2026] 6. In case the petitioner does not possess bench mark disability and he has secured employment on the ground of having bench mark disability then the respondents are at liberty to take action as suggested in case of Ramprakash Kharlwa Vs. The Director, Elementary Education and Ors. (supra), but till the assessment/re-assessment of bench mark disability no coercive action be taken against the petitioner. 7. With aforesaid, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J GAURAV /23