The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reinforced the principle that administrative decisions affecting fundamental rights to employment must be grounded in procedurally fair and communicated medical assessments. A candidate’s disqualification based on a medical report never shared with him violates natural justice and renders the order legally unsustainable.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Shubham Kumar Yadav, applied for the post of Middle and Primary School Teacher under the reserved category for Persons with Disability (Divyang) in the State of Madhya Pradesh. A total of 60 seats were reserved for candidates in this category. The petitioner claimed eligibility based on a 40% permanent disability certificate issued by the District Medical Board, Rajgarh.
Key Facts
- The petitioner appeared in the preliminary examination for the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) 2023 on 25.04.2023
- He qualified in the main examination conducted on 26.03.2025
- On 17.03.2026, he received official communication inviting him for counseling and selection
- He holds a valid disability certificate issued by the District Medical Board, Rajgarh, certifying 40% permanent disability
- On 26.03.2026, he underwent a re-examination at Bhopal Jilla Chikitsalaya Rogi Kalyan Samiti and received a receipt
- On 07.05.2026, the respondents disqualifying his candidature, citing a medical report dated 23.03.2026 that concluded his disability was temporary
- The petitioner was never provided a copy of the 23.03.2026 medical report or given any opportunity to respond to its findings
- The report was not signed or validated by the authority as required under procedure
Procedural History
- 25.04.2023: Preliminary TET examination conducted
- 26.03.2025: Main TET examination; petitioner qualified
- 17.03.2026: Counseling call issued to petitioner
- 26.03.2026: Petitioner appeared for medical re-examination; received receipt
- 23.03.2026: Medical report prepared (undisclosed to petitioner)
- 07.05.2026: Disqualification order issued based on undisclosed report
- 13.05.2026: Writ Petition No. 17897 of 2026 filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- A writ directing the respondents to declare him qualified for the post of Middle and Primary School Teacher
- Appointment on the post with all consequential benefits including pay, seniority, and pension
- Setting aside of the disqualification order dated 07.05.2026
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an administrative authority may lawfully disqualify a candidate for a reserved post based on a medical report that was never communicated to the candidate and against which no opportunity of hearing was afforded.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the disqualification order dated 07.05.2026 was vitiated by violation of natural justice and procedural fairness. He relied on the principle that no person shall be condemned without being heard (audi alteram partem). The medical report dated 23.03.2026, which formed the basis of rejection, was never shared with him. He further submitted that his original disability certificate issued by the District Medical Board, Rajgarh, was duly issued under statutory authority and could not be arbitrarily overruled without a fair re-assessment. He cited State of U.P. v. Mohd. Noor and K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India to emphasize the constitutional obligation of fair procedure in public employment.
For the Respondent/State
The State, through the Government Advocate, contended that the medical re-examination was conducted in accordance with guidelines and that the petitioner’s disability was found to be temporary. It was argued that the State had the authority to verify claims under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, and that the petitioner’s original certificate was outdated. However, no specific statutory provision or rule was cited to justify withholding the report or denying the petitioner an opportunity to respond.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the right to employment under a reserved category is not merely a privilege but a constitutional guarantee under Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution, particularly when the reservation is statutorily mandated. The Court emphasized that the State’s power to verify disability status cannot override the fundamental right to a fair hearing.
"The denial of access to the very report upon which the adverse decision is based is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was not given any opportunity to challenge the findings, present contrary evidence, or seek clarification. This cannot be countenanced in a rule-of-law state."
The Court further noted that the medical report dated 23.03.2026 was not signed or validated by the competent authority as required under the procedure. The absence of a signature and the lack of procedural compliance rendered the report legally inadmissible as a basis for disqualification.
The Court rejected the State’s argument that the original certificate was outdated, holding that the burden of proving invalidity lies with the authority, and that such invalidation must be done through a fair, transparent, and communicated process.
The Verdict
The writ petition was allowed. The disqualification order dated 07.05.2026 was set aside. The respondents are directed to re-examine the petitioner’s disability through a duly constituted Medical Board at Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal. The Board must determine the exact percentage of disability and whether it is permanent or temporary. The petitioner must be given advance notice of the re-examination date. The Board shall forward the original report to the respondents and a copy to the petitioner via speed post within 15 days of completion. Pending this re-examination, one seat for the Middle and Primary School Teacher post shall be kept vacant. If the new report confirms temporary disability, the State may proceed with regular appointment; if permanent disability is confirmed, the petitioner shall be appointed with all consequential benefits.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Procedural Fairness Is Non-Negotiable in Disability-Based Reservations
- Practitioners must challenge any administrative rejection based on undisclosed medical reports as violative of audi alteram partem
- Disability verification must follow statutory procedures; unilateral re-assessments without notice are void
- Original certificates issued by authorized boards cannot be disregarded without a fair, documented, and communicated re-evaluation
Medical Reports Must Be Validated and Communicated
- All medical reports used for adverse decisions must bear the signature and seal of the certifying authority
- Candidates must receive copies of all reports used against them, with sufficient time to respond
- Failure to communicate a report renders the decision legally unsustainable, regardless of its substantive findings
Vacancy Preservation Is a Procedural Imperative
- When a candidate’s eligibility is under re-examination, the reserved seat must be kept vacant pending outcome
- Filling the seat prematurely may result in the entire selection being set aside if the candidate is later found eligible
- This prevents irreparable harm to the candidate’s right to equal opportunity
