Courts cannot interfere with the reports given by competent medical boards in the absence of malafides, and they do not hold expertise on the subject of medical assessments.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Mehta, J. - The petitioner has challenged the certificate dated 13.01.2022, issued by the Disability Assessment Board, wherein the petitioner has been held ineligible on account of having 27% disability-less than the requisite disability which makes a candidate entitled to claim reservation under Person with Disability (in short, 'PwD') Category.

2. The facts relevant for the present purposes are that the petitioner, being desirous of pursuing medical course, applied in the PwD Category on the basis of a certificate of disability showing 40% locomotor disability.

3. The petitioner's result was declared and his name was reflected in the list of PwD Category candidates called for counselling.

4. The petitioner appeared before the Disability Assessment Board, SMS. Hospital, Jaipur which declared the petitioner to be unfit to pursue medical course vide its report dated 29.12.2021.

5. The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition challenging the aforesaid report dated 29.12.2021, however, the same was withdrawn as the petitioner had got himself subjected to assessment by Disability Assessment Board of Shri Ram Manohar Lohiya Hospital, New Delhi.

6. The Disability Assessment Board of Shri Ram Manohar Lohiya Hospital, New Delhi also held the petitioner to be ineligible under PwD Category, inter alia, reporting that his percentage of disability is 27%, which is less than the minimum benchmark disability.

7. Mr. Khileree, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that the Disability Assessment Boards have seriously erred in holding the petitioner ineligible to claim reservation.

8. It is contended that the petitioner is having a valid disability certificate issued by the competent authority and the same is binding.

9. It is argued that the petitioner is having 40% disability and is, therefore, entitled to be considered under PwD Category.

10. Mr. Manish Vyas, learned AAG, appearing for the respondent-State and respondent No. 5, argued that as per Clause 5.3.3, the petitioner is required to subject himself before the Disability Assessment Board and the assessment made by the Disability Assessment Board as per the relevant rules and guidelines/notification in this regard, is required to be considered final.

11. It is submitted that petitioner has been subjected to medical assessment by two boards; one at SMS. Hospital, Jaipur and the other at Shri Ram Manohar Lohiya Hospital, New Delhi and both of them have found the petitioner to be ineligible and, therefore, this Court may not interfere in the present case.

12. Heard.

13. Admittedly, the petitioner has been subjected to assessment of his disability by two medical boards, one constituted by SMS. Hospital, Jaipur and another by Shri Ram Manohar Lohiya Hospital, New Delhi and both the Boards have found the petitioner to be ineligible for claiming reservation under PwD Category.

14. In the judgment dated 09.11.2017 in the case of Hanuman Lal Jat v. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs & Ors. [D.B. Civil Special Appeal Writ No. 1259/2017], Division Bench of this Court has held that the Court cannot sit over the opinion given by the medical boards. The relevant part of the judgment reads thus:-

"The Ld. Single Judge taking note of report of the Review Medical Board was not inclined to interfere in its equitable jurisdiction u/Art. 26 of the Constitution and after we have heard counsel for the appellant we too are of the view that this Court does not hold any expertise on the subject and report of the medical Board has to be given its due precedence and that apart it is not case of the appellant that the Medical Board or the Review Medical Board was not constituted as per the mandate/requirement of law or either Member of the Board was biased, in absence whereof what being observed by the Medical Board in its report has to be given its due credence/precedence and we find no reason to interfere unless there is contemporary evidence on record to the contrary and the appellant placed relianc