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



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Satish Chandra Sharma, Subramonium Prasad, JJ.
Mohd. Danish Khan - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
LPA 587 of 2022 & CM Appl. 44889 of 2022
Decided On : 01-11-2022




Eligibility for PwD reservations in medical education hinges on clearly defined criteria regarding hearing impairment and functional competency, as set by relevant medical regulations.

Headnote:(A) Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 - Section 33 - Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Disability certification for medical admission - Appellant challenges rejection of disability certificates claiming PwD reservation - Court upheld learned Single Judge’s findings that the Appellant did not meet eligibility criteria due to insufficient speech discrimination score and consistent evaluation results. (Paras 1-20)

(B) Disability Certificate - Validity and criteria - The criteria laid down under the Indian Medical Council Act were meticulously analyzed, confirming the necessity for a hearing disability below the benchmark for eligibility. (Paras 13-16)

(C) Certification authority - The learned Single Judge rightfully dismissed certificates from non-designated institutions as invalid. (Paragraph 18)

Facts of the case:
The Appellant's initial disability certificate indicated eligibility but was later contradicted by a second certificate, which affirmed ineligibility based on functional competency and criteria established by the NMC.

Findings of Court:
The Appellant does not meet the prescribed criteria as he exceeds the allowable hearing impairment threshold and lacks the required speech discrimination score.

Issues: Whether the Appellant's certificate from a non-designated hospital can be considered valid and if re-examination is warranted.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the standards outlined in the Medical Council's regulations were paramount, rejecting claims of inconsistency in the original certificate, while emphasizing adherence to designated certification authorities.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. eligibility criteria for pwd reservation (Para 2 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 16)
2. definitions and criteria for hearing impairment (Para 6 , 7 , 14 , 15)
3. procedure for issuing disability certificates (Para 13 , 18)
4. court's decision on the appeal (Para 19 , 20)

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J.

1. Challenging the Order dated 26.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 13423/2022, the Appellant has filed the instant LPA with the following prayers:

    "a. Quash/Set aside the Impugned Order dated 26.09.2022;and/or

    b. Quash the Disability Certificates dated 01.09.2022 and 20.09.2022 issued by the Respondent No. 6; and/or

    c. Pass an order for re-examination of the Appellant by a NEET designated disability certification Centre other than Respondent 6 for the purpose of issuance of a fresh disability certificate; and/or

    d. Direct the Respondent 3 to Allow the Appellant to participate in the NEET PG Counselling for the year 2022; and/or

    e. pass any other or further order as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."

2. The facts of the case reveal that the Appellant herein applied for NEET PG Examination-2022. The Medical Counselling Committee i.e. Respondent No.4 herein issued notice dated 08.08.2022, stipulating the conditions to avail the reservations which are meant for People with Disabilities (hereinafter referred to as 'PwD') and the desired disability certificate.

3. As far as Prayers B, C & D are concerned, the learned Single Judge has noted that these issues are related to the inclusion of persons who are physically challenged and the High Level Committee has already taken notice of W.P.(C) 12653/2022, which is pending before this Court.

4. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order has left it open to Appellant herein to raise all the issues pertaining to Prayers B & C by way of a separate writ petition as a chosen advice. The arguments were heard only as far as Prayer A is concerned.

5. Respondent No.4 herein, Directorate General of Health Services, Medical Counselling Committee issued notice dated 08.08.2022 informing all the candidates of PG Counselling that in order to avail PwD reservation, the candidates should furnish disability certificate issued from one of the designated NEET Disability Certification Centre.

6. In accordance with the said notice, the Appellant herein appeared before Lady Hardinge Medical College & Associated Hospital, which is one of the designated NEET Disability Certification Centre. A Disability Certificate dated 01.09.2022 was issued to the Appellant. The relevant portion of the certificate reads as under:

7. A perusal of the said certificate shows that though in the conclusion it is stated that the candidate is eligible to pursue medical education and also eligible to claim PwD reservation. However, the later portion of the certificate shows that he is not eligible because his functional competency with the aid of assistive devices does not fall in the permissible category.

8. The Appellant, therefore, filed W.P.(C) 13423/2022, and Prayer A was made to quash the said certificate dated 01.09.2022 issued by the Lady Hardinge Medical College & Associated Hospital. During the pendency of the writ petition, on 20.09.2022, a fresh Disability Certificate was issued by the Lady Hardinge Medical College & Associated Hospital, which reads as under:

9. A perusal of the second certificate dated 20.09.2022 shows that the mistake in the certificate dated 01.09.2022 had been rectified and it has been conclusively held that the Appellant is not entitled for the PwD reservation. The learned Single Judge has meticulously scanned the Disability Certificate dated 20.09.2022 which records that the Appellant is not eligible to pursue medical course as per the norms laid down by the NMC. The learned Single Judge noted that in the certificate dated 01.09.2022, there were inconsistencies as the later part of the certificate records the reason a






Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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