IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Aniruddha Roy, J.
Ankur Manna - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.A. No. 23056, 23203, 24186 of 2022
Decided On : 28-11-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. reservation for persons with disabilities (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. statutory right for disability reservations (Para 8 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 3. reasonable accommodation under the law (Para 24 , 26 , 27 , 30 , 32) |
| 4. judicial interpretation of the law (Para 36 , 39 , 44) |
| 5. dismissal of the petitions (Para 61 , 62 , 63 , 66) |
JUDGMENT
Aniruddha Roy, J. - This cluster of writ petitions are interrelated. The issues involved in these writ petitions pertain to reservation of seats for the persons with physical disabilities in respect of the National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test- Post Graduation, 2022 (for short, the said Entrance Test) being conducted on All India Basis by the National Board of Examinations for Post Graduate Medical Courses.
Facts:-
2. 50% seats of all Post Graduate Medical Courses under the said Entrance Test are filled up by way of counseling conducted by Medical Council Committee on All India basis which are called the All India Seats and the rest are filled up by way of counseling conducted by the State Authorities which are called State Quota Seats. The result of the said entrance examination was declared. The petitioner secured the rank as 71356. Since the petitioner did not serve in rural, remote and difficult areas, he was not eligible to the reservation provided for the In-Service Doctors. However, he was eligible to participate in the counseling in the open category.
3. The petitioner suffers from Deltoid Paralysis at his left arm. This is a left upper limb disability. This locomotor disability of the petitioner was assessed being 50% by the appropriate authority, Annexure P-2 to the writ petition. With the said disability the petitioner was eligible to avail of the reservation provided for the persons with disabilities. In the counseling process for admission for the Post Graduate Medical Courses for previous year the petitioner participated under the physically handicapped (PH) category.
4. On September 21, 2022 the respondent no.4 issued the notification for counseling, with the time schedule mentioned therein, Annexure P-3 to the writ petition. On September 27, 2022 the respondent authority issued the seat matrix for counseling process for the State Quota, Annexure P-4 to the writ petition.
5. From the said seat matrix the petitioner came to learn that the reservation was provided in the same for the persons with disabilities in an arbitrary manner, without there being any consideration for the nature of the stream in the post graduate courses. No reservation was provided for the persons with disabilities in the stream Dermatology, whereas same provisions were made for General Surgery, Gynecology and Obstetrics and other streams. In all these streams the similarly placed persons suffering from the identical locomotor disabilities got the opportunity to avail of the reservation but the petitioner opted stream for Dermatology where such reservation was not provided for.
6. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner made representations dated September 28, 2022 before the respondent authorities, Annexure P-5 to the writ petition. The petitioner contended that for not providing such reservation for the stream Dermatology was in violation of the provisions laid down under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act , 2016 (for short, the said Act). The relevant respondent authorities replied to the said representation of the petitioner and contended that the necessary reservation was done and provided as per the roster prepared by the respondent authorities. On request of the petitioner the petitioner was provided with a copy of West Bengal State Higher Education Institutions (Reservation in Admissions) Rules, 2013 (for short, the said 2013 Rules), Annexure P-5 to the writ petition and informed the petitioner on the basis of the same the reservation was provided for.
7. No reservation was provided f
Disabled Rights Group v. Union of India
G. Jayalal vs. Union of India & Ors.
Rachit Sinha and Others vs. Union of India and Others
Rachit Sinha v. Union of India
Rajive Raturi v. Union of India
Syed Bashir-ud-din Qadri v. Nazir Ahmed Shah
The Act mandates minimum reservation for the disabled, allowing horizontal reservations; rules must specify seats for effective integration.
Exclusion from admission despite valid disability certification violates rights and mandates of reasonable accommodation under disability laws.
Quantified disability alone cannot disqualify candidates from educational opportunities; individual assessments must determine eligibility based on the ability to pursue the course.
The court established that valid certifications under the RPwD Act must be recognized for admission to medical courses, emphasizing the authority of designated certifying bodies over assessments by o....
A person with benchmark disability cannot be denied admission in medical courses if they qualify according to merit and applicable reservation provisions.
Reservation of seats for hill candidates in medical colleges was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, as it was not based on any relevant data or classification.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.