Lokmat News Network
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar: Despite being selected for the post of Assistant Director of Agriculture (Group-A) through the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC), the candidate's appointment had been denied on the technical ground that his disability was of a 'temporary' nature.
Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court, comprising Justice Nitin B. Suryavanshi and Justice Vaishali Patil-Jadhav, dismissed the State Government's petition and ordered that the concerned candidate be appointed within four weeks.
Box
What was the petition?
Candidate Vishal Dhole participated in the selection process for 203 posts under the 'Maharashtra Gazetted Agricultural Technical Services' examination in 2021. He was selected under the 'Divyang' (Persons with Disabilities) quota, following which the MPSC had recommended his name to the government.
However, the State Government refused to appoint him, citing that his disability (Paranoid Schizophrenia-- 40%, temporary disability) was not permanent in nature. Against this injustice, the candidate approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT). The MAT, on 25th June 2024, ruled in the candidate's favour and ordered his appointment. The Government had challenged this decision in the High Court.
Box
Arguments & Verdict
During the hearing, the Government's counsel cited the GR dated September 13, 2022, arguing that persons with temporary disability cannot be appointed to permanent posts.
However, the court rejected this argument, clarifying that the said Government Resolution pertains solely to the benefits of government schemes and has no bearing on appointments. The Medical Board of JJ Hospital submitted a report certifying that Vishal Dhole was eligible under the Divyang quota. The Bench dismissed the government's petition, observing that the order passed by MAT was entirely logical and contained no legal flaw.
An interim order previously issued by the court on January 15, 2025, directing that one post be kept vacant, has now been vacated. Adv A V Lavate appeared for the petitioner while adv A S Khedkar represented the respondent.