Schizophrenia Diagnosis Unlikely To Improve, Falls Under Permanent Disability: MP High Court Directs Appointment Of Man As IT Officer

A single judge bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar observed, “…in the present case, the petitioner is suffering from “Schizophrenia” and it is also not mentioned that his condition is likely to improve, thus, the case of the petitioner is on a better footing. It is also found that the respondents have also not come out with any document that the mental disability in the form of Schizophrenia can improve in future or is non-progressive.…this Court is of the considered opinion that the disability of the petitioner, which is mentioned as temporary in the disability certificate, and is valid only for five years, cannot be treated as temporary disability.”

As per the factual matrix of the case, the petitioner, a physically challenged person applied for the post of I.T. Officer as advertised by the Respondent No. 3/Institute Of Banking Personnel Selection. The petitioner appeared in the preliminary examination and mains examination and subsequently appeared for the interview and got selected for the post of IT Officer (Scale-I). he was also issued a provisional offer of appointment.

At the time of verification of the original documents, the petitioner was asked to get the Disability Certificate certifying that his disability was permanent in nature. However, even after submission of the disability certificates, the impugned order rejecting the candidature of petitioner for the post of IT officer was passed by the respondents on the ground that the petitioner suffers from temporary disability only and not permanent, which was a prerequisite. Thus, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents cannot reject the petitioner's candidature only on the ground that in his disability Certificate, it was mentioned that the petitioner suffers from 40% mental illness which was temporary in nature. It was further submitted that such certificates are issued for a limited period of time, and in the present case it was for five years, and that is why in his disability certificate it is mentioned that they are temporary in nature. Counsel also submitted that even in the advertisement, it was not provided that the disability has to be permanent in nature. The advertisement only stated that the disability should not be less than 40%.

On the contrary, the Counsel for Respondent No. 1/Chairman, Union Bank of India and 2/General Manager, Union Bank of India submitted that the petitioner had suppressed his earlier disability certificate while filing the petition, which clearly proved that the disability was temporary in nature. It was further submitted that the subsequent certificates were also temporary in nature as they clearly stated that they were valid for a period of five years only.

The respondents further submitted that they sought clarification in this regard from the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan) and the Department also found that since the disability certificate of the petitioner states that it is temporary in nature and the certificate nowhere mentions whether the condition is progressive/not likely to improve, hence, it was not appropriate to treat his certificate of disability as permanent certificate.

After hearing the parties, the Court perused the disability certificate of the petitioner and noted that although it provides for 40% disability of the petitioner, but the disability is stated to be temporary in nature and the Certificate is for a period of five years. However, the Court also noted that nowhere in the Certificate it is mentioned that this disability is likely to improve in the near future, or whether it is progressive or non-progressive.

The Court referred to the decision of Delhi High Court in Bhavya Nain Vs. High Court of Delhi wherein the mental disability of the petitioner was “bipolar” and the disability was said to be likely to improve, he was still given the benefit of reservation.

Therefore, the Court opined that the petitioner's case was at a better footing. The Court noted that the respondents also failed to provide any document that the mental disability in the form of Schizophrenia can improve in future or is non progressive.

Thus, the impugned order of rejection of candidature of the petitioner was quashed.

The Court directed the respondents to issue the appointment letter to the petitioner, with effect from 18.08.2023, with all the consequential benefits except the monetary benefits.

The petition was hence, allowed.

Case Title: Arpit Kumar Bhana Versus Union Bank Of India And Others, Writ Petition No. 22228 Of 2023

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 88