Denial of admission to a person with disability in educational institutions, especially against the quota earmarked for persons with disability, shall be considered based on the candidate's ability to perform the essential functions of the course, and admission shall not be denied on the ground of disability if the candidate is capable and competent to pursue the course.

JUDGMENT :

P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.

1. Petitioner is a person suffering from Cerebral Palsy. The issue in this case relates to the right of the petitioner to claim admission to MBBS course against the quota earmarked for “Persons with Disability.”

2. The petitioner appeared for the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test, 2020 (the Test) to secure admission to MBBS Course. She secured Rank No. 344859 in the Test. As per Clause 4(3) of the Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 (the Regulations), 5% seats of the annual sanctioned intake capacity in Government and Government aided Institutions shall be filled up by candidates with benchmark disabilities in terms of the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (the Act) based on their rank in the Test, subject to the eligibility in terms of Appendix H-1 to the Regulations. In terms of the Act, a candidate with benchmark disability is a candidate with not less than forty per cent of a specified disability and the specified disability is any one of the disabilities specified in the Schedule to the Act. Cerebral Palsy is a specified disability. Appendix H-1, however, provides that in order to claim admission against the quota earmarked for ‘Persons with Disability’ the disability of candidates suffering from Cerebral Palsy shall not be more than 80%. In the second round of allotment against all India quota, the petitioner was provisionally allotted a seat at the Government Medical College, Manjeri. Ext.P5 is the provisional allotment letter issued to the petitioner. As per the prospectus, a candidate seeking admission under the quota earmarked for ‘Persons with Disability’ has to produce a Certificate of Disability from the Designated Centre. Ext.P6 is the Certificate of Disability secured by the petitioner from the Designated Centre. In Ext.P6, it is certified that the petitioner is suffering from Spastic Cerebral Palsy Triplegia and her disability is 63.3%. It was, however, endorsed in Ext.P6 that since the right upper limb of the petitioner is involved in her disability, she is not suitable for admission to Medical Courses. In the light of the said endorsement in Ext.P6 Certificate of Disability, the petitioner was denied admission to the course. The case set out by the petitioner in the writ petition is that since she is eligible for admission to MBBS Course in the quota earmarked for ‘Persons with Disability’ as per the Regulations, she cannot be denied admission to the course based on the endorsement of suitability made by the authority designated for issuing the Certificate of Disability. The petitioner, therefore, seeks orders quashing Ext.P6 Certificate of Disability, to the extent it provides that the petitioner is not suitable for Medical Courses. The petitioner also seeks a declaration that she is eligible for admission to MBBS Course under the quota earmarked for ‘Persons with Disability’ as per the Regulations. She further seeks directions to the respondents concerned to admit her to the MBBS Course in the institution referred to in Ext.P5 allotment.

3. On 07.12.2020, this Court admitted the writ petition and passed an interim order directing the concerned respondent to admit the petitioner provisionally to the MBBS Course, subject to further orders. The said interim order reads thus:

“Admit.

2. Learned CGC, Sri. Jayasankar V Nair takes notice for respondents 1 and 2. Learned Standing Counsel, Sri. Titus Mani Vettom, takes notice for the 3rd respondent. Learned Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 4, 7 and 8. Learned Standing Counsel, Sri. Nirmal S. takes notice for respondents 5 and 6.

3. By Ext.P6 certificate, the special medical board while assessing the disability of the petitioner at 63.3% opined that though the petitioner is eligible for PWD quota, she is not suitable for medical and dental courses. The