IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Ziyad Rahman A.A., J.
Kshithi P.V – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry Of Education, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi and ors. - Respondents
WP(C) NO. 29723 OF 2024
Decided On : 09-09-2024
Disability - Admission - RPwD Act 2016, Sections 32, 56-59 - The court emphasized the statutory framework for assessing disabilities and the authority of certifying bodies, ruling that the petitioners' valid certifications under the RPwD Act must be recognized for admission under the reserved quota.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, certified as having benchmark disabilities under the RPwD Act, were denied admission to medical courses based on assessments by a State Medical Board, which found their disabilities below the required threshold, leading to the filing of writ petitions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the State Medical Board exceeded its authority by disregarding valid certifications from designated certifying authorities under the RPwD Act, thus ruling that the petitioners should be reconsidered for admission based on their statutory certificates.
Issues: Whether the State Medical Board and State Level Committee had the authority to reassess the degree of disability of candidates already certified under the RPwD Act for admission to medical courses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the statutory framework established by the RPwD Act, particularly the roles of certifying authorities, must be adhered to, and that the petitioners' valid certifications should not be overridden by assessments from bodies lacking such authority.
Result: The court directed the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations to reconsider the petitioners' eligibility based on their valid certifications under the RPwD Act.
JUDGMENT :
Ziyad Rahman A.A., J.
The petitioners in these Writ Petitions are aggrieved by the assessment of physical disability made by the State Medical Board and the State Level Committee constituted by the State Government, to assess the physical disability and suitability of the candidates, for considering them for admission to the MBBS and other medical courses, as contemplated in the prospectus issued for KEAM 2024.
2. In all these cases, the petitioners were certified by the competent authorities under the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016(hereinafter referred to as the RPwD Act, 2016) as persons with benchmark disability having sustained an extent of disability of 40% and above. As per Section 32 of the RPwD Act 2016, all Government institutions of higher education and other higher educational institutions receiving aid from the government shall reserve not less than 5% seats for persons with benchmark disabilities.
3. Being eligible for the reservation contemplated under Section 32 of the RPwD Act, 2016, all the petitioners have submitted their applications. As part of processing the said applications, the petitioners were subjected to examination by a State Medical Board constituted by the State Government and an assessment was made as contemplated under clause 5.3 of the prospectus, a copy of which is marked as Ext.P8 in WP(C) No.29803/2024. In the said assessment, all the petitioners were found to be having physical disabilities to the extent of less than 40%. Thereafter, further scrutiny was conducted by the State Level Committee constituted as per the prospectus and final decisions were taken in the matter of the petitioners and the said decisions were to the effect that, even though the petitioners are suitable for pursuing the medical courses, they are not entitled to admission under the quota set apart for physically disabled candidates. Based on the same, the petitioners were not included in the category-wise list published by the Commissioner for Entrance Examination for physically disabled candidates. These Writ Petitions were filed by the petitioners in such circumstances, seeking various reliefs, including the inclusion of their names in the category-wise list for physically disabled candidates.
4. In all these Writ Petitions, detailed counter affidavits/statements were filed by the Commissioner of Entrance Examination. The main contention raised by the Commissioner is to the effect that, the constitution of State Medical Board and State Level Committee, and the assessments made by them, are matters specifically mentioned in clause 5.3 of the prospectus which is not under challenge in any of the writ petitions. It was also averred that, the State Medical Board as well as the State Level Committee were formed with the sole purpose of identifying the proper eligible candidates who satisfy the criteria of benchmark disability, so as to ensure that, the reservation contemplated under RPwD Act, 2016 is received by the persons who are most eligible for the same. It was also averred that all the petitioners have participated in the admission process, after clearly understanding the terms and conditions in the prospectus, including clause 5.3, and therefore, after undergoing the admission process, they cannot now turn around and challenge the decision taken by the authorities concerned, not to include them in the RPwD quota. Thus, the dismissal of the writ petitions was sought by the respondents.
5. Heard Sri. P. Deepak, the learned Senior Counsel who was assisted by Sri.Deepak Raj, the learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No.29803/2024 and WP(C) No.29723/2024, Smt. Thulasi K. Raj, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C)No.28507/2024, Sri P.G.Pramod, learned Government Pleader for the Entrance Commissioner and Sri Nirmal S. Standing Counsel for National Testing Agency, and Sri Prenjith Kumar, learned Counsel for the National Medical Commission.
6. Sri. P. Deepak, the learned Senior C
Vidhi Himmat Katariya and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. (2019)10 SCC 20
Abdul Kayoom v. CIT AIR 1962 SC 680
Aswathy P. (Minor) v. State of Kerala and Others 2011 (1) KLT 562
Herrington v. British Railways Board (1972) 2 WLR 537
The court established that valid certifications under the RPwD Act must be recognized for admission to medical courses, emphasizing the authority of designated certifying bodies over assessments by o....
Exclusion from admission despite valid disability certification violates rights and mandates of reasonable accommodation under disability laws.
Quantified disability alone cannot disqualify candidates from educational opportunities; individual assessments must determine eligibility based on the ability to pursue the course.
The Appellate Medical Board's assessment should be given sanctity, and challenges to the constitution of the Special Medical Board should be raised in the writ petition. The State has a duty to make ....
The court upheld the exclusion of candidates with disabilities from medical admissions based on a lawful assessment of functional eligibility, balancing inclusion with patient safety under the Rights....
The 2016 Act's provisions for certifying disabilities take precedence over extra statutory assessments, ensuring that admissions are based on valid certifications.
The court affirmed that the UDID must be prioritized for disability claims over conflicting assessments, reinforcing the legal right to reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities.
Reasonable accommodation is a fundamental right for persons with disabilities, and Disability Assessment Boards must prioritize functional competence over mere quantification to ensure equality and i....
The court established that additional minor disabilities should not disqualify candidates with 40% or more disability in one leg from public employment, reinforcing the principles of equality and non....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.