Ashim Kumar Roy, J. - (1.) THE writ petitioner is a physically handicapped person and his physical disability is to the extent of 85%. In this regard while a Medical Board of Egra Sub -Divisional Hospital issued the disability Certificate being Annexure P/1, the Department of Women and Child Development and Social Welfare (Disability Division) issued an Identity Card being Annexure P/2 to the writ application. He is a person hails from otherwise backward classes and also registered with the Employment Exchange and possess the identity card issued by the Rural Rehabilitation Extension Centre (Vocational Rehabilitation Centre for Handicapped), Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India being Annexure P/3. The petitioner passed his M.A. Examination in History in the year 2006 and obtained second class.
(2.) IT is the case of the writ petitioner in response to an advertisement made by the West Bengal Regional School Service Commission inviting application from the eligible candidates for filling up the vacancies in the post of Assistant Teacher in Recognized Non -Govt. Aided School, under 9th Regional Level Selection Test (AT) 2008, he offered his candidature. Pursuant to his application he was asked to appear before the personality test board of the respondent no. 1 and thereafter for counseling. The petitioner accordingly appeared for counseling and was selected and recommended for appointment in the post of Assistant Teacher in Arjuni Shree Shree Ram Krishna Adarsha Vidyamandir (H.S.), vide Annexure P/6. Thereafter as desired by the respondents authorities, petitioner appeared before be Medical Board, Calcutta Medical College and Hospital, Special Medical Board, Calcutta Medical College and Hospital, the Central Medical Board, Calcutta Medical College and Hospital for examination of his extent of disability. He also appeared before the Audiologist, Calcutta Medical College and Hospital and was examined by him vide Annexure P/12 and P/13. It is now contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner although he was selected both in personality test and counseling held by the respondent authority and then his name was recommended for appointment but his actual appointment has been withheld by the respondent authority on a purported medical report submitted by the Audiologist that petitioner is not physically handicapped in respect of hearing impairment to the extent of 85%.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the writ petitioner relying on a unreported decision of a co -ordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court relating to W.P. No. 6003 (W) of 2010, Bidyut Kar -vs. -State of West Bengal & Ors., where along with the said writ application, similar other 85 writ applications were disposed, submitted before this court since the issue involved in the present case is identical to that of the issue involved in those cases, therefore this writ application be disposed of in the light of the said decisions. He then invited the attention of this court to the observations made in paragraph 36 and 37 of the aforesaid unreported decisions, which are quoted below; 36. There are some writ petitions where the petitioners have approached this court with different causes of action, the origin of the dispute remaining same. In W.P. No. 13484 (W) of 2010 and W.P. No. 10310 (W) of 2011 the petitioners have not been recommended, but reason for this is not clear from the writ petition. If the reason for not making recommendation is doubtful disability certificate, then the course as directed in the preceding paragraph shall be followed by the Commission. In W.P. No. 2476 (W) of 2011, the petitioner had been asked by the Medical Board to conduct a special test, described as BERA Test from a private institute. No conclusion has been reached on validity of her candidature, as it appears from the pleadings. I direct her candidature to be processed on the basis of her existing certificate on disability, if found valid. In W.P. No. 19710 (W) of 2010, the petitioner's candidature was invalidated and his appointment was cancelled. There is dispute on the question as to whether he appeared before the Special Medical Board or not. His appointment and recommendation has been withdrawn on the ground that he did not report for final medical test. A presumption appears to have been drawn that as he did not report for the test, his degree of disability was below 40%. His candidature shall also be restored, and his appointment shall be confirmed. Withdrawal of his recommendation and cancellation of his appointment and all consequential steps taken in that regard shall stand quashed for the reasons discussed in this judgment. In W.P. No. 23138 (W) of 2010, complaint of the petitioner is that he is being asked to report repeatedly before the Special Medical Boards. His candidature shall also be processed on the basis of his subsisting disability certificate issued in terms of the 1995 Act, and he shall not be required to attend the Special Medical Board. 37. I make it clear, however, in all these cases, it shall be open to the Commission to verify with the issuing authority as to whether the certificates of the individual candidates are genuine or fabricated, and if such certificates are found to be forged or fabricated, invalidate their candidature. The Commission shall also be at liberty to take up the issue of individual candidates with the Appellate Medical Board, if they find the certificate to be genuine, but assessment made in the certificate to be doubtful. In such a situation, the validity of candidature of individual candidates shall be guided by the finding of the appellate Medical Board.;