The main legal point established in the judgment is that the constitution of the Expert Committee to oversee disability certificates and its assessment of disability were opposed to the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 and the Rules made thereunder by the State government.

The writ petitioner challenges the Clause 42(iv) of the Instructions in the prospectus for M.B.B.S./B.D.S. admissions for 2009-10 issued by the second respondent in so far as it relates to the constitution of the Expert Committee for confirming the certificate issued by the District Medical Board and also for direction to admit the petitioner in M.B.B.S. Course in the quota reserved for the physically handicapped persons.

2. The petitioner, who belongs to Most Backward Class, is stated to suffer from 60% locomotor disability, which is stated to have been caused due to an accident that took place when the petitioner was 7 years old, by which his left leg was run over by a jeep, resulting in such permanent disability. The petitioners father is a farmer and the petitioner is the first generation literate in the family. He secured 1048 marks out of 1200 in Higher Secondary Examinations held in April, 2009. He applied for both Medical and Engineering Courses.

2(a). As per the prospectus 3% of seats are reserved for physically disabled candidates and the candidates with disability of 50% to 70% of lower limbs would be considered first and after that, if the seats are still available, then the candidates with disability of 40% to 50% would be chosen and the candidates are to produce a certificate from the District Medical Board regarding the extent of disability.

2(b). As per the terms of prospectus, the said certificate is subject to confirmation during counselling by the Expert Committee constituted by the Directorate of Medical Education. Forty five seats are reserved for handicapped in the Government Medical Colleges. The District Medical Officer, Cuddalore, after examining the petitioner, issued a certificate that he is suffering from 60% disability.

2(c). According to the petitioner he was in 10th place in the rank list of handicapped candidates based on his marks and ability, however, the petitioner was not selected on the basis that the Expert Committee assessed his disability at 25%. According to the petitioner, he was not physically examined and the decision arrived at by the Expert Committee is arbitrary. It is also stated that in Anna University, wherein he attended the counselling for Engineering college admission, the Selection Committee and the Medical Board concurred and accepted the petitioners disability as 60%.

2(d). Since the petitioner was not selected for M.B.B.S. course, he filed W.P.No.13809 of 2009 for direction against the second respondent to select him. It was at the time of admission of the writ petition, the certificate issued by the M.B.B.S. Medical Board showing that the petitioner was having 25% disability was furnished and therefore, the said writ petition was dismissed on 27. 2009, against which the petitioner filed a writ appeal in W.A.No.1055 of 2009, which was also dismissed as withdrawn on 30.7.2009. Thereafter, the present writ petition is filed challenging the above said Clause in the prospectus.

3. The said Clause 42(iv) in the prospectus is challenged on various grounds including, that the said Clause is opposed to the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (in short, "the Act"); the Medical Board constituted by the Director of Medical Education cannot sit over the certificate issued by the competent notified authority, viz., the District Board as per the provisions of the said Act; Section 2(t) of the said Act provides that a person with disability will be deemed to be a person suffering from disability not less than 40% as certified by the Medical Authority and the Medical Authority as notified by the Government, as per the Rules framed under the Act, is alone competent to decide the disability.

3(a). It is also the case of the petitioner that the said Clause is opposed to the directions issued by the Medical Council of India. By virtue of the Clause, the avowed object of the above said Act is tak