While setting aside the termination of a disabled employee, Rajasthan High Court held that a mere variation between two legally valid medical assessment reports, could not by itself be treated as proof of fraud by the employee in securing the employment.

The bench of Justice Mukesh Rajpurohit opined that in case of such variations, if the earlier disability certificate required reconsideration, the matter should be dealt with as per the statutory framework under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (the “Act”), rather than treating the former one extinguished in light of the latter.

For context, the petitioner-employee was granted a disability certificate in 2018 by the Chief Medical and Health officer, Barmer, assessing more than 40% disability in his lower limb.

Based on this certificate, petitioner participated in the recruitment process for the post of Village Development Officer in which he was declared successful and was posted in District Sirohi. Thereafter, in 2023, he was again examined by a Medical Board of Government District Hospital, Sirohi, that certified almost 50% disability in his lower limb.

The petitioner was subsequently shifted to District Barmer, wherein he completed his probation period and his services were confirmed.

Thereafter, when the Department of Personnel and Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj directed re-examination, the petitioner was re-assessed by the Medical Board of District Hospital, Barmer, in 2026, that assessed his disability at only 30.5%. On this ground, his services were terminated. This order was challenged by the petitioner.

The petitioner submitted that the 2026 assessment by itself did not establish that the earlier certificates of 2018 and 2023 were forged or fraudulently obtained. Further, before terminating his services, neither the assessment report nor the show cause notice were issued to him for providing opportunity to be heard. Hence, there was violation of principles of natural justice.

After hearing the contentions, the Court held that the subsequent assessment of 2026, could not by itself conclusively establish that the earlier certificates were false or invalid, especially when there was no finding or allegation of fraud, fabrication or misrepresentation by the petitioner.

The Court observed,

“The certificate issued under the statutory framework is not a document which can simply be ignored by an administrative authority without examining its legal status. The statutory scheme also contemplates a mechanism for questioning a decision of the certifying authority. Therefore, if the respondents were of the opinion that the earlier certificate was incorrect or required reconsideration, the matter was required to be dealt with in accordance with the statutory framework and applicable procedure, rather than treating the later medical opinion as automatically extinguishing the legal effect of the earlier certificate.”

The Court highlighted that the respondents had not alleged commission of any fraud on part of the petitioner in securing the appointment. Hence, the case stood materially different from a situation where an employee was found to have secured the employment by submitting a forged disability certificate or deliberately making a false representation.

The Court also took into account the clear violation of principles of natural justice.

“…his services had acquired the protection attached to a confirmed employee. The subsequent assessment of disability at 30.5%, without any finding of fraud, fabrication, misrepresentation or manipulation on the part of the petitioner, could not, by itself, justify termination of his services by a simpliciter administrative order.”

In this background, the termination order was set aside and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated into service at the post of village development officer.

The Court, however, clarified that the state had the option of undertaking verification proceedings of the earlier issued disability certificates of the petitioner, in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed.

Title: Babu Ram v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 357

Click Here To Read/Download Order