1. At the outset, learned counsels for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the present writ petitions but looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present matter, the permission as prayed for is declined.

2. The brief facts of the case are as under:

3. The petitioner had applied for the post of Live Stock Assistant in pursuance to the advertisement issued in the year 2016. He applied in the disabled category and for the purpose, annexed a disability certificate (Inward No.765/2000) dated 21.12.2016 showing percentage of disability to be 60. After the select list being issued, a Medical Board was constituted by the respondent-Department for the purpose of verification of percentage of disability of the candidates and on 27.09.2017, the Medical Board issued the certificate qua the present petitioner. In the opinion of the Medical Board, the petitioner did not even fall in the category of handicapped. On the basis of the said certificate issued by the Medical Board, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected by the Staff Selection Board vide order dated 17.10.2017. At that stage, the 1st writ petition (No.6313/2019) was filed by the petitioner with the averment that he is unaware of the fact as to why he had not been selected and appropriate orders be passed in his favour.

4. In the year 2018, a fresh advertisement was issued by the respondent-Department for the post of Live Stock Assistant and the petitioner again applied in pursuance to the said advertisement in the disabled category and this time he annexed the same disability certificate (Inward No.765/2000) dated 21.12.2016, but percentage of disability was shown to be 40. When the select list was issued and his name was not shown in the select list, he filed a representation to the respondentauthorities with the specific averment that he is having 40% disability and called for the reasons why he was not selected. The same being not considered, he preferred the second writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1086/2020).

5. Vide interim order dated 21.01.2020, the respondentSelection Board was directed to carry out the petitioner’s documents verification and the petitioner was directed to remain present before the respondent-authorities on 27.01.2020 for the purpose. In pursuance to the interim order passed by this Court, the document verification of the petitioner was done and it was revealed that the disability certificate annexed by the petitioner along with his application form is a complete forged document. In the reply to the present writ petition, it has specifically been averred that the said certificate is the same certificate which was annexed by the petitioner along with his application form qua the advertisement of the year 2016 in which his candidature was rejected on the specific ground that he did not even fall in the category of handicapped. The petitioner used the same certificate in the year 2018 with the fraudulent alterations being made in the same despite the fact that his candidature had already been rejected on the basis of the said certificate in the earlier recruitment.

6. No rejoinder to the reply submitted by the respondents has been filed.

7. A bare perusal of the certificates placed on record and as annexed by the petitioner along with his application forms qua the vacancies of the year 2016 and 2018 makes it crystal clear that the same has been amended and alterations have been made in the same. The first certificate annexed during the process of the recruitment in the year 2016 showed his disability to be 60% whereas the same certificate annexed during the process of recruitment of 2018 shows the same to be 40%. The changes in the date and percentage made in the certificate are clear that one can see even with naked eyes. Moresoever, the certificate dated 27.09.2017 issued by the Medical Board of the Department shows that the petitioner is not disabled even to a percentage of 40. It was the specific opinion of the Medical Board that the same was a case of mild epino venous deficiency (right leg) and the candidate did not fall in the category of handicapped. Therefore, it is crystal clear on record that the petitioner has forged the disability certificate and used the same unlawfully to gain undue advantage.

8. In view of the clear facts on record, the petitioner is not held to be entitled to any relief and hence both the writ petitions (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1086/2020 and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6313/2019) are dismissed to that extent. It is directed that an FIR be lodged against the petitioner by the respondent-authorities firstly, for getting a disability certificate issued in his favour inspite of he not being disabled and secondly, qua the alterations made by the petitioner in the disability certificate for using the same to claim undue advantage and for gainful purpose. Further, the respondent-department would take appropriate action in terms of law to debar the petitioner from appearing in any future recruitment examinations to be conducted by it. An inquiry be also made by the respondent-Department to ascertain the fact whether the disability certificate (inward No.765/2000) dated 21.12.2016 was ever issued to the petitioner by the authorities mentioned therein. If it is found that the said certificate was issued by the authorities mentioned therein, an inquiry against the issuing authorities be also made as to how the same was issued when it was the specific conclusion of the Medical Board that the petitioner did not even fall in the category of handicapped.

9. Let the copy of the FIR, the action taken by the respondentdepartment against the petitioner and the enquiry report as conducted by the respondent-Department be placed on record before the next date, i.e., 16.08.2022.

10. List the matter on 16.08.2022.