Introduction
In Babu Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Civil Writ Petition No. 17812/2026, the Rajasthan High Court set aside the termination of a government employee whose services were brought to an end solely on the strength of a subsequent medical board assessment that recorded a lower degree of disability than two earlier certificates on which his appointment and confirmation had rested. The Bench of Justice Mukesh Rajpurohit held that a mere variation between successive, independently valid disability assessments cannot, by itself, be treated as proof that the employee had practised fraud in securing employment.
The judgment is significant for clarifying that a certificate issued under the statutory framework of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 continues to hold legal effect until it is displaced through the procedure the statute itself prescribes, and that an administrative authority cannot simply treat an earlier certificate as extinguished because a later medical opinion happens to differ from it.
Factual Matrix
The petitioner was issued a disability certificate in 2018 by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Barmer, assessing more than 40% disability in his lower limb. On the strength of this certificate, he participated in the recruitment process for the post of Village Development Officer under the reserved category for persons with disabilities, was declared successful, and was posted in District Sirohi.
In 2023, he was examined afresh by a Medical Board of the Government District Hospital, Sirohi, which certified his disability at almost 50%. He was subsequently transferred to District Barmer, where he completed his probation period and his services were confirmed in the ordinary course.
Thereafter, upon a direction for re-examination issued by the Department of Personnel and the Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, the petitioner was once again examined, this time by the Medical Board of the District Hospital, Barmer, in 2026. This assessment placed his disability at only 30.5%, below the threshold on which his original appointment had been premised. Relying solely on this 2026 report, the respondent-authorities terminated his services by a simpliciter administrative order, without issuing either the assessment report or a show-cause notice to him, and without affording him any opportunity of hearing. The petitioner challenged this termination before the High Court.
Issues Before the Court
- Whether a subsequent medical assessment recording a lower degree of disability can, by itself and without a finding of fraud, fabrication, or misrepresentation, invalidate or extinguish the legal effect of earlier disability certificates issued under the statutory framework.
- Whether the termination of a confirmed employee, effected without disclosure of the assessment report, without a show-cause notice, and without an opportunity of hearing, violated the principles of natural justice.
Courts’ Ruling
The Court held that the 2026 assessment could not, on its own, conclusively establish that the earlier certificates of 2018 and 2023 were false, forged, or fraudulently obtained, particularly in the absence of any finding or allegation of fraud, fabrication, or misrepresentation against the petitioner.
It observed that a certificate issued under the statutory framework of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 is not a document that an administrative authority can simply disregard without examining its legal status, and that the statutory scheme itself contemplates a mechanism for questioning the decision of a certifying authority.
Accordingly, if the respondents were of the view that the earlier certificate required reconsideration, the matter had to be dealt with in accordance with that statutory framework and applicable procedure, rather than by treating the later medical opinion as automatically displacing the earlier one.
The Court further emphasised that the petitioner’s case stood on a materially different footing from one where an employee is found to have secured employment through a forged certificate or a deliberate false representation, no such allegation had been made against him. Coupled with this, the Court took note of the clear breach of natural justice: the petitioner, having been confirmed in service, had acquired the protections attached to that status, and a subsequent disability assessment of 30.5%, unaccompanied by any finding of fraud, fabrication, misrepresentation, or manipulation, could not by itself justify termination through a simpliciter administrative order.
The termination order was accordingly set aside, and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated to the post of Village Development Officer. The Court, however, clarified that this did not foreclose the State from undertaking verification proceedings in respect of the petitioner’s earlier disability certificates, in accordance with law. The petition was allowed
AMLEGALS Remarks
The judgment reinforces an important procedural safeguard for persons with disabilities in service: the legal effect of a validly issued disability certificate cannot be treated as automatically nullified merely because a later assessment yields a different figure. Disability, particularly in orthopaedic and similarly progressive or fluctuating conditions, can genuinely vary in degree over time for reasons unconnected with any misrepresentation at the time of the original certification, a point the Court implicitly recognised in insisting that any challenge to an earlier certificate be routed through the statutory mechanism rather than short-circuited by administrative fiat.
For any queries or feedback, feel free to connect with Hiteashi.desai@amlegals.com or Khilansha.mukhija@amlegals.com