Ratio
Benefits of reservation provided under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 is available to the persons suffering from any type of disability exceeding 40% and it could not be restricted to any limited categories.

1. An interesting question arises for consideration is as to whether the Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India, the third respondent herein, under Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (Shortly "the MCI Act") prescribing that the persons suffering locomotor disability in lower limbs with 40 - 70% alone are entitled to reservation for admission in M.B.B.S. Course, under 3% reservation provided under Section 39 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (Shortly "the Disabilities Act").

2. The petitioner passed +2 examinations during the academic year 2010-2011. She made an application to the second respondent for admission in M.B.B.S. Course. She is a physically challenged person. She applied under Special Category (Orthopaedically Physically Disabled). She was called for counselling on 30.06.2011. She did not get a seat under the Special Category (Orthopaedically Physically Disabled) on the ground that she does not suffer locomotor disability with lower limbs, according to the Selection Committee. The petitioner produced a disability certificate issued by the Regional Medical Board, Government General Hospital, Chennai. As per the disability certificate, she suffers locomotory lower limbs disability between 40-50%, while upper limbs are normal. The Medical Board opined that the petitioner fulfills the medical standards to undergo studies in Medical institutions. But the said medical certificate was not acceptable to the second respondent.

3. In these circumstances, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the notification dated 25.03.2009 issued by the third respondent as well as Sl.No.42, Column No.4 of the prospectus issued by the first respondent, making only the Orthopaedically Physically Disabled candidates with lower limbs disability alone as eligible for admission to M.B.B.S. Course and also for a consequential direction to amend the eligibility criteria for admission to M.B.B.S. Course by including other locomotor disabilities as contemplated under Section 2(o) read with 2(i) of the Disabilities Act.

4. In the writ petition, this Court passed an order on 15.07.2011 directing the second respondent to ascertain the petitioner's disability taking into account the disability certificate produced by the petitioner referred to above. Subsequently, an interim order was passed in M.P.No.1 of 2011 in W.P.No.16144 of 2011 directing the second respondent to keep one M.B.B.S. Seat vacant.

5. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court on 15.07.2011, the second respondent referred the petitioner to another Regional Medical Board, Government General Hospital, Chennai. The said Medical Board gave a certificate dated 19.07.2011 stating that petitioner's upper and lower limbs are normal. The Medical Board opined that the petitioner is not eligible for admission to M.B.B.S. Course, as per the guidelines issued by the Medical Council of India.

6. The respondents 1 and 2 have filed a common counter affidavit and the third respondent has filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations.

7. The respondents 1 and 2 have stated in their counter affidavit that based on the guidelines issued by the third respondent, the prospectus was issued providing reservation to Orthopaedically Physically Disabled candidates with disability of lower limbs between 50 -70% and in case, candidates are not available in that category, then candidates with lower limbs of 40-50% may be considered. The crux of the counter affidavit is that they simply followed the decision of the third respondent.

8. The third respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that the Medical Council of India is a statutory authority created and constituted by the Central Government under the MCI Act and the third respondent has been vested with the responsibility of discharging the duties of maintenance of minimum standards of Medical Educatio