The court upheld the authority of the Selection Board to make admission decisions based on medical opinions and the permissible limit of physical disability set by the Medical Council of India.

Ranjan Gogoi, J.

1. The writ petitioner is the father of one Bidyut Bikash Gogol who is a physically challenged person. The physical disability that the petitioner's son suffers from is loco-motor disablement of both the lower limbs. The petitioner's son appeared in the Common Entrance Examination for Admission to the M.B.B.S./BDS Course in the Medical Colleges of the State commencing the year 2004. He had applied against the seats reserved for physical disabled persons and on the basis of the written examination held, he was placed at Sl. No. 1 of the Merit list of physically disabled candidates. The petitioners son was called for interview/counseling, which was held on 26/27.7.2004 and in course of the interview, the son of the petitioner had placed before the Selection Board the identity Certificate issued by the District Level Medical Board as well as a certificate from the Head of the Department of Orthopedics Surgery of the Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh. Submission of both the aforesaid certificates are required under Rule 7(7) of the Rules governing admission to the Medical Colleges. Both the aforesaid certificates certify the percentage of physical disability of the petitioner's son to be 58. It must be put on record, at this stage that as per the Medical Council of India's guidelines, physically handicapped candidates having loco-motor disablement of the lower limbs would be entitled for admission, if the percentage of such disablement is between 50% and 70%. Though the certificates produced by the petitioner's son brought him within the parameters laid down in the Medical Council of India's guidelines, the Selection Board thought it proper to refer the case to a specially constituted Medical Board, which gave its opinion that the extent of physical disability suffered by the petitioner's son is not 58% but it is 75%. On the aforesaid basis, admission having been refused to the petitioner's son, the instant recourse to the writ remedy has been made by the petitioner on behalf of his teenaged son.

2. The stand of the official Respondents as projected in the affidavit filed is that admission to the petitioner's son had been refused; as the specially constituted Medical Board had found the extent of physical disability to be 75%, i.e., beyond the permissible limit, it is the further case of the Respondents that for the purpose cy revaluation of all orthopaedically handicapped candidates seeking medical admission, a Special Medical Board had been constituted to whom all such cases including that of the writ petitioner's son was referred and in the present case the decision not to admit the son of the writ petitioner was taken on the basis of the report of the said Medical Board and in conformity with the guidelines Issued by the Medical Council of India.

3. The extent of disability/handicap suffered by a candidate being in the ultimate analysis an opinion, though an opinion of the experts and in the present case there being two such conflicting medical opinions, this Court by its order dated 23.8.2004 had required the Professor of the Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Silchar Medical College to re-examine the matter and report back to the Court certifying the percentage of physical disability of the petitioner's son. The Professor and Head of the Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Silchar Medical College, acting in great promptitude had submitted a report in sealed cover, which, on being opened, has been found to contain a report recording the ultimate conclusion that the extent of physical disability of the petitioners son is indeed 75%, The question, therefore that confronts the Court is what is the eventual order that ought to be passed on the facts, as noted above.

4. The role of the Writ Court in matters pertaining to medical admission is a limited role, i.e., to oversee the actions of the duly Constituted Selection Board in admitting or refusing to admit students to the Medical Courses. The Court would cert