Summary
An appointee challenged an order requiring State Medical Board assessment of disability for a post requiring at least 40 per cent disability. Earlier certificates had not been issued by that Board; examination directed during the appeal assessed 33.9 per cent. The Court rejected reliance on improvement from an earlier certificate presented as permanent, dismissed the appeal and directed lawful consequential action by the State.
Issues
- Whether the appointee established the required disability through the competent Medical Board.
- Whether alleged improvement could explain a lower assessment where the earlier certificate had no limited validity.
- What further assessment and appointment action should follow.
Provisions considered
- Rules 4 and 5, Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Rules, 1996A duly constituted Medical Board issues certificates; permanent disability and variable disability require different certification, with validity periods for potential variation and review available on representation. (¶¶ 3, 8–9)
Held
- The appellant had not previously been examined by the State Medical Board, and the relied-on certificates were not issued by it. The Board examination directed by the Court found 33.9 per cent disability, below the post’s 40 per cent requirement. (¶ 4–6)
- The argument that a 2009 assessment of 50 per cent had improved was rejected because the certificate was not time-bound and represented permanent disability without indicated variation. On this record the competent Board’s assessment showed the requisite percentage was not established. (¶ 7–8)
- A further medical-board examination was unnecessary unless the appellant sought review. The State had to act immediately in accordance with law; respondent 3 was to replace him forthwith if that respondent was the person entitled to appointment in the disability category. The Court did not make an unconditional independent appointment determination. (¶ 9–11)
Result
Appeal dismissed, without costs. State directed to take immediate lawful consequential action, including replacement by respondent 3 if entitled; further medical assessment unnecessary unless review sought.