SANJAY BHAVSINGH PATIL vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. THE MINISTRY FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND ANR

2. ---- CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ. DATE : 17th February, 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the parties. 1 of 12 Trupti 901-wp-7784-2024.odt 2. On 30th January, 2025, we had passed the following order : “1. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides and the learned Additional Government Pleader on behalf of the State. 2. Normally, the Courts are extremely slow in interfering with the orders of the suspension, if the competent Authority has exercised the power duly vested in it by law. However, in cases where the suspension order is issued by an Incompetent Authority, or such order cannot be justified, that this Court has interfered in suspension orders. 3. The case before us is quite peculiar. The Petitioner claims to be suffering from 40% visual impairment. He submits that his first certificate is of 2009, wherein, he was found to be suffering from visual impairment to the extent of 40% disability. He is diagnosed to be suffering from BE Myopia with Macular Degeneration. He has produced one certificate dated 10th September, 2015 issued by the Competent Distric