The Chhattisgarh High Court has affirmed that administrative revenue officers lack the statutory authority to question the validity of disability certificates issued by duly constituted Medical Boards. This judgment reinforces the principle that medical determinations under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, must be confined to qualified medical fora, and any attempt by non-medical authorities to invalidate such certificates violates both statutory procedure and constitutional rights.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Lakhan Bihari Patel, a Shiksha Karmi Grade-III teacher, was issued a disability certificate on 10.08.2010 by the District Medical Board, Mahasamund, certifying a 45.4% conductive hearing loss. Based on this certificate, he was selected and appointed to his post on 24.11.2010 under the Janpad Panchayat Saraypali. His services were confirmed after probation, and he was absorbed into the School Education Department by order dated 01.07.2019. He has been serving continuously since 2010 without any prior challenge to his eligibility.
A family property dispute arose between the petitioner and his brother, Respondent No. 4, Kailash Chandra Patel. On 12.12.2017, during Jan Darshan, Respondent No. 4 filed a complaint before the Collector, Mahasamund, alleging that the petitioner had obtained his appointment by submitting a forged disability certificate. The Collector directed the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Saraypali (Respondent No. 3), to conduct an inquiry. Revenue Case No. 37B-121/2017-18 was registered on 27.01.2018.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was medically examined and issued a disability certificate on 10.08.2010 (Annexure P-2)
- He was appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III on 24.11.2010
- His services were confirmed and he was absorbed into the School Education Department on 01.07.2019
- Respondent No. 4 filed complaint on 12.12.2017 alleging forgery of disability certificate
- Revenue Case No. 37B-121/2017-18 registered on 27.01.2018
- The SDO sought verification from the Civil Surgeon, Mahasamund, on 15.01.2020
- Civil Surgeon’s report dated 24.01.2020 and 26.02.2020 stated that it could not be ascertained whether the photograph on the certificate belonged to the person examined
- Audiometric and BERA tests conducted in 2018 showed no hearing disability
- Impugned order dated 13.08.2020 was passed by SDO Revenue recommending criminal proceedings
- Original disability certificate was submitted by petitioner during inquiry
Procedural History
- 10.08.2010: Disability certificate issued by District Medical Board, Mahasamund
- 24.11.2010: Petitioner appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III
- 12.12.2017: Complaint filed by Respondent No. 4 before Collector
- 27.01.2018: Revenue Case No. 37B-121/2017-18 registered by SDO Revenue
- 24.01.2020: Civil Surgeon’s first report submitted
- 26.02.2020: Civil Surgeon’s second report submitted
- 13.08.2020: Impugned order passed by SDO Revenue recommending criminal action
- 15.09.2020: Petitioner filed writ petition before Chhattisgarh High Court
- 01.04.2026: Judgment delivered by High Court
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner: Argued that the SDO Revenue, as a non-medical officer, had no jurisdiction to question the validity of a certificate issued by a statutory Medical Board. He relied on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and the Standard Operating Procedure (SoP) of February 2025, which prescribe exclusive procedures for challenging disability certificates. He emphasized that his appointment had remained unchallenged for over seven years and that the SDO’s reliance on 2018 audiometric tests to invalidate a 2010 certificate was legally flawed.
Respondents 1-3 (State): Contended that the impugned order was merely recommendatory and not final, and therefore not subject to writ jurisdiction. They argued that the petitioner had participated in the inquiry and had not objected to jurisdiction at the time. They relied on the Civil Surgeon’s reports and 2018 medical tests to support the allegation of fraud.
Respondent No. 4: Submitted that he had no specific relief sought against him and was only a formal party. He reiterated the allegations of certificate forgery and impersonation.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Quashing of the impugned order dated 13.08.2020
- Return of his original disability certificate
- Direction to the SDO to cease any further proceedings based on the impugned order
- Any other relief deemed fit by the Court
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), lacking medical expertise and statutory authority under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, can lawfully question the genuineness of a disability certificate issued by a District Medical Board and recommend criminal proceedings based on subsequent medical assessments.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on Section 52 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which provides a statutory appeal mechanism for challenging disability certificates. He argued that only the issuing Medical Board or a designated Appellate Medical Board may review or cancel such certificates. He cited the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment’s Standard Operating Procedure (SoP) dated 01.02.2025, which mandates a formal, multi-stage verification process involving medical experts. He further relied on Om Rathord v. Director General of Health Services (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3130) and Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. Union of India (2024 SCC OnLine SC 2860), where the Supreme Court held that administrative officers cannot substitute their judgment for that of medical boards. He emphasized that disability is a dynamic condition and a certificate validly issued cannot be invalidated retrospectively without conclusive evidence of fraud.
For the Respondent
The State counsel contended that the impugned order was only recommendatory and did not directly affect the petitioner’s rights. They argued that the petitioner had participated in the inquiry and had not raised jurisdictional objections. They relied on the Civil Surgeon’s reports and 2018 audiometric tests to suggest that the petitioner did not suffer from the claimed disability. They maintained that the inquiry was fair and that the SDO acted in good faith to prevent misuse of reservation benefits.
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a comprehensive review of the statutory framework under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and the Rules framed thereunder, particularly Rules 17 and 18, which vest exclusive authority to issue and verify disability certificates in notified medical authorities. The Court observed that the SDO, as a revenue officer, has no medical training, no statutory mandate, and no procedural competence to adjudicate on the authenticity of a medical certificate.
"The power to assess medical disabilities and disentangle questions relating to genuineness and medical causation lies exclusively within medically qualified fora and not with a revenue official."
The Court rejected the State’s argument that the order was merely recommendatory, holding that even recommendatory opinions must be grounded in lawful authority and reasoned analysis. The recommendation to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioner, based on inconclusive medical reports, was deemed arbitrary and violative of natural justice.
The Court emphasized that the Civil Surgeon’s reports did not conclude that the certificate was forged. They only stated that the photograph’s authenticity could not be verified and that subsequent tests showed no current disability. The Court held that a person’s medical condition may improve over time, and a certificate issued in 2010 cannot be rendered invalid merely because a 2018 test showed no impairment. The Supreme Court in Omkar Gond and Om Rathord had clearly held that disability certification must be assessed at the time of issuance, and later improvements do not negate prior validity.
The Court further noted that the SDO had failed to follow the mandatory SoP of 01.02.2025, which requires verification by the issuing Medical Board or an Appellate Medical Board. The complete bypassing of this statutory mechanism rendered the order void ab initio.
"A certificate validly issued at one point of time cannot be rendered ‘forged’ simply because a person’s condition improves over time."
The Court also found a violation of audi alteram partem. Although the petitioner was heard, there was no record of him being given access to the 2018 test reports, an opportunity to produce independent medical evidence, or a chance to confront the allegations with expert rebuttal. The hearing was formalistic, not substantive.
The Verdict
The writ petition was allowed. The impugned order dated 13.08.2020 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Saraypali, is hereby quashed and set aside. Any action taken or proposed to be taken pursuant to the order, including the recommendation for criminal proceedings, stands annulled. The SDO is directed to forthwith return the original disability certificate to the petitioner. The Court clarified that if the competent authority wishes to verify the certificate, it must do so strictly in accordance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and the applicable Standard Operating Procedure, by referring the matter to the issuing Medical Board.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Administrative Officers Cannot Act as Medical Reviewers
- Practitioners must challenge any attempt by revenue, police, or education officials to invalidate disability certificates without referral to a statutory Medical Board
- Any order or recommendation by non-medical authorities on the genuineness of a disability certificate is void for lack of jurisdiction
- Such actions are subject to immediate quashing under Article 226
Disability Certificates Are Not Retroactively Invalidated
- A certificate issued based on medical assessment at the time of issuance remains valid even if the individual’s condition improves later
- Subsequent medical tests cannot be used to retroactively declare a certificate fraudulent unless there is conclusive evidence of misrepresentation at the time of issuance
- Courts will not permit the use of later health improvements to deny benefits already lawfully availed
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
- The Standard Operating Procedure (SoP) of 01.02.2025 is mandatory for challenging disability certificates
- Any inquiry must involve the issuing Medical Board or an Appellate Medical Board
- Failure to follow the SoP renders proceedings void, regardless of the outcome
- Practitioners must insist on procedural compliance before any adverse action is taken
