SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Del) 3958

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, SUNIL GAUR, JJ.
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA - Appellant
Versus
DIGANT JAIN AND ORS. - Respondents
LPA 651, 654 OF 2017
Decided On : 13-11-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sh. Vikas Singh, Sr. Advocate with Sh. T. Singhdev, Ms. Puja Sarkar, Ms. Mischalle Biakthan Singh and Sh. Tarun Verma, Ms. Ekta Sikri and Sh. Jasbir Bidhuri, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Sh. Bharat Sanghal, Ms. Vernika Tomar, Ms. Vidushi Garg, Ms. Isha Gupta and Ms. Anudita Deka, Sh. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC and Sh. Waize Ali Noor and Sh. Prateek Dhanda, Sh. Siddhartha Dutta, Advocate.

The absolute and inviolable nature of the cut-off date for admission, as emphasized by the Supreme Court, played a crucial role in the court's decision.

Headnote:

Disability Rights - MBBS Admission - Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - [2016 Act] - Section 3, Section 32 - The court discussed the provisions of the 2016 Act, which increased the number of recognized disabilities to 21 and raised the reservation for persons with disabilities from 3% to 5%. The court emphasized the importance of the regulatory Committee's evaluation of disabilities for determining suitability for educational courses and highlighted the absolute and inviolable nature of the cut-off date for admission.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent, Digant, sought admission to the MBBS course under the PWD category, citing thalassemia as a disability recognized by the 2016 Act. Despite his re-categorization and participation in counselling rounds, he was denied admission, leading to a writ petition.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondent's expectation of being considered for admission was not supported by factual basis. It emphasized the absolute nature of the cut-off date for admission and held that the deadline had passed when the judgment was delivered, thus setting aside the lower court's decision to allow the writ petition.

Issues: The main issues revolved around the recognition and consideration of thalassemia as a disability for MBBS admission, the availability of vacancies in the PWD category, and the adherence to the cut-off date for admission.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of factual basis for the respondent's expectation of admission, the absolute nature of the cut-off date for admission, and the absence of a valid vacancy in the PWD category at the time of the judgment.

Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the judgment and directions of the lower court were set aside. The respondent's plea for admission was rejected.

JUDGMENT :

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. These appeals are by the Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (hereafter “the University”) and the Medical Council of India (hereafter “MCI”). They are aggrieved by the judgment of a learned single judge directing the admission of the respondent/candidate (the writ petitioner, hereafter called “Digant”) to the MBBS course commencing in the academic year 2017-18.

2. Digant complained of unfair treatment in regard to admission to the MBBS course, for which he had applied; his contention was that his application as a candidate with disabilities (as a thalassaemia patient) did not receive proper and due consideration in accordance with provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereafter referred to as the “2016 Act”). The 2016 Act was brought into force on 19.04.2017. The earlier Act dealing with disabilities was repealed. Under the new law, the number of disabilities that can be considered were increased to 21. Thalassemia is a disability recognized by the new Act. This Act also increased the reservation of such category of persons (persons with disabilities -PWD) from 3% to 5%.

3. Digant applied in March 2017 for appearing in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test, 2017 (NEET) as a general category candidate. NEET is an All India medical college entrance process. NEET results were announced on 23.06.2017. Digant says that on learning about the coming into force of the new Act, he filed an appropriate application before the competent authorities, i.e. the appellants, on 05.07.2017- for his re-categorization from “general” to “PWD” (“person with disability”). The appellants on 06.07.2017 accepted this and his status from general category was converted to PWD category; he was accordingly placed in the list of PWD category on the website of the University. Digant participated in the first round of counselling that took place on 23.07.2017. Since his name did not appear after the first round of counselling, he had been permitted to appear in the second round of counselling which was conducted on 12.08.2017. His name did not figure in the list of selected candidates, after the second round of counselling. It was argued on his behalf that in the third round of counselling, (which was the mop-up round, on 27.08.2017), he again appeared and participated, before the University. This occurred during the pendency of the writ petition, which was preferred on 26.08.2017.

4. Digant complained, in the writ petition, that the re-categorization of his candidature, and his participation in the various rounds of counselling, being admitted facts and indeed not disputed in the writ proceeding, denial of admission to him in the PWD quota was shocking and arbitrary. It was stated that the recategorization from originally the general category to PWD category took place on 16.07.2017. This fact was well known to the appellant/authorities, who gave no valid or cogent reason to deny him admission.

5. The University’s stand was reflected in its counter affidavit and the additional affidavit; it was submitted that the original 3% quota in the PWD category was enhanced to 5% quota. The University urged its hands were tied, because despite thalassemia’s recognition as a disability under the 2016 Act yet in the absence of the MCI’s clearance to it (the University) to treat a thalassemia patient as entitled for admission to the MBBS course, it could not grant admission. The University wrote several e-mails to MCI dated 30.07.2017, 04.08.2017, 10.08.2017, 14.08.2017 and 22.08.2017 seeking its guidance in respect of Digant’s status. Since there was no response, the University was constrained to convert the unfilled seats in the PWD category to the general category.

6. It was argued that as on the date of hearing of the writ petition, all seats were filled. It was argued that Digant approached the court later; the University relied on a circular dated 09.08.2017 notifying that all remaining vacant seats (




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top