Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Del) 942

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MANMOHAN, C.J., TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.
Roshan Lal Dhanka – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 14332 of 2024, CM APPL. 59995 of 2024 & CM APPL.59996 of 2024
Decided on : 14-10-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajender Yadav, Adv.
For the Respondent:Mr. T. Singhdev, Mr. Abhijit Chakravarty, Mr. Anum Hussain, Mr. Aabhas Sukhramani and Ms. Yamini Singh, Adv., Mr. Kavindra Gill, SPC with Mr. Kalyan, Mr. Kalyan Babu Singh, Mr. Sanjay Khanna, Standing Counsel, Ms. Pragya Bhushan, Mr. Karandeep Singh, Mr. Tarandeep Singh, Advocate for NTA

The court ruled that disability must be fairly assessed, emphasizing eligibility for medical courses should not be automatically disqualified based on disability alone.

Headnote:(A) Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Guidelines on admission regarding specified disabilities - The court challenged provisions that declare individuals with amputation ineligible for medical courses under the Graduate Medical Education Regulations. The appellant, with 70% locomotor disability, was denied admission in NEET-UG 2024, affecting his future prospects. (Paras 1, 2, 6)

(B) Assessment of disability - The court directed re-evaluation to determine impact on the appellant's ability to perform duties as a postgraduate medical student, considering previous experience and eligibility under the non-surgical stream. (Paras 8.1, 8.7)

(C) Interim orders - Due process requires fairness in eligibility determination while safeguarding the timely admissions process. (Paras 6, 8.8)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, an MBBS doctor with a significant disability assessment, challenged the decision rendering him ineligible for postgraduate studies and sought reversal based on his previous medical performance and qualifications.

Findings of Court:
The court ordered a reassessment of the appellant’s disability to determine eligibility for pursuing medical education and permitted him to seek state quota admissions.

Issues: The main issues involved the intersection of disability criteria and eligibility for educational advancement in medical fields, alongside potential prejudice toward the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for objective and fair assessment based on an individual's capabilities, outlining the necessity for re-evaluating disability as this aligns with legal standards for educational access.

Result: Appeal disposed of with directions for further assessment.

Table of Content
1. challenge to eligibility guidelines for disabilities. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court's assessment of interim relief considerations. (Para 4)
3. director of aiims directed to assess petitioner's disability. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)

JUDGMENT :

MANMOHAN, C.J.

1. Present petition has been filed challenging Appendix “H–1” titled as ‘Guidelines regarding admission of students with “Specified Disabilities” under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 with respect to admission in MBBS Course’ contained in Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 (“Impugned Regulation”) which provide that persons with amputation are not eligible for admission in medical course.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that pursuant to the declaration of the result of NEET-UG 2024, the Petitioner went to the designated disability center i.e. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital. On assessing the Petitioner, the Hospital certified that the Petitioner is suffering from 70% Locomotor Disability. However, it further certified that the Petitioner was ineligible to pursue further medical education which has rendered the Petitioner wholly ineligible to participate in the NEET-UG 2024 counseling and has jeopardized the Petitioner’s future.

3. Issue notice.

4. Mr. Kavindra Gill, CGSC accepts notice on behalf of Union of India (UOI) and Mr.T.Singhdev, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of National Medical Commission (NMC). They draw the attention of this Court to the interim order dated 01^st August, 2023 passed in LPA No.571/2023 and interim order dated 11^th July, 2024 passed in W.P. (C) No. 9363/2024. The order dated 01^st August, 2023 passed in LPA No.571/2023 is reproduced herein below:-

“1. The present intra-court appeal impugns interim order dated 24th July, 2023 whereby learned Single Judge has declined to grant any interim relief to the Appellant in a writ petition [W.P.(C) 9618/2023] filed by him, impugning the Respondents’ decision declaring him ineligible to pursue postgraduate medical course.
2. Issue notice. Mr. T. Singhdev and Mr. Farman Ali, learned counsel, accept notice on behalf of Respondent No. 1 and Respondents No. 2 and 3, respectively.
3. The Appellant is a qualified MBBS doctor, who has been assessed with 72% locomotor disability due to right brachial plexus injury. He is currently working as a Medical Officer in Rajasthan and was previously engaged with Respondent No. 2 – Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, as an ad-hoc doctor. Appellant asserts that he has performed all medical duties diligently, and without any complaints from supervisors or patients.
4. Desirous to pursue a postgraduate medical course, Appellant appeared for the National Eligibility Entrance Test (Postgraduate), 2023 [“NEETPG”] under the General-PwD category and secured 260 marks in the said examination. Thereafter, Appellant appeared before a medical board of Respondent No. 2 for his medical assessment. The medical board issued a Certificate of Disability dated 13th July, 2023, assessing Appellant’s disability at 72% locomotor disability. On the basis of this evaluation, Appellant has been declared to be ineligible to pursue medical courses and avail 05% PwD reservation, under the applicable norms. Aggrieved thereby, he filed W.P.(C) 9618/2023 before this Court inter alia seeking quashing of the aforesaid Certificate of Disability and a direction to Respondents to allow him to participate in the counselling process for NEET-PG as a qualified General-PwD candidate. The counselling process is stated to commence from 25th July, 2023.
5. In the aforesaid writ petition, when the matter was taken up for hearing on 24th July, 2023, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant requested that notwithstanding the merit position in the General-PwD category, Appellant should be considered for allocation of seats under the State quota. This request was however declined by the learned Single Judge, observing that as the Appellant had not been allotted a seat and had not sec