Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K.K. SASIDHARAN, J.
T. Nalini & Others
Versus
Secretary to Government, Health & Family Welfare Department, Chennai & Another
W.P. Nos. 17199, 17200, 17201 & 17902 of 2013
Decided on: 02-09-2013
Mandatory Clause - Admission Quota for Physically Disabled Candidates - Prospectus - [The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, Section 32] - The court analyzed the mandatory clause in the prospectus requiring confirmation of medical certificates by an expert team for admission under the physically disabled category. The court considered the guidelines issued by the Medical Council of India and the purpose of the reservation for disabled candidates. The judgment highlighted the importance of expert assessment of disability and upheld the validity of the clause in the prospectus.
Fact of the Case:
The physically challenged petitioners sought admission to MBBS/BDS courses under the quota reserved for Orthopedically Physically disabled candidates. They obtained disability certificates from the District Medical Board but were subjected to a second medical examination by an expert team, leading to denial of admission. The petitioners challenged the clause in the prospectus requiring confirmation of medical certificates by the expert team.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the expert assessment of disability was crucial for admission under the reserved category. It noted discrepancies in the assessment of disability by the District Medical Board and emphasized the need for uniformity in assessing disability. The court upheld the validity of the clause in the prospectus and dismissed the writ petitions.
Issues: The core issue was whether the mandatory clause in the prospectus, requiring confirmation of medical certificates by an expert team, was justified for admission under the physically disabled category.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the expert assessment of disability was essential for ensuring the eligibility of candidates under the reserved category. It emphasized the need for uniformity in assessing disability and upheld the validity of the clause in the prospectus.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions and upheld the validity of the clause in the prospectus requiring confirmation of medical certificates by an expert team for admission under the physically disabled category.
1. These writ petitions are primarily against the mandatory clause in the prospectus issued by the Directorate of Medical Education that the medical certificates issued by the District Medical Board of the area concerned for claiming seats under the quota reserved for Orthopedically Physically disabled category would be subjected to confirmation by the expert team at the time of counseling.
The facts:
2. The petitioners are all physically challenged candidates aspiring for admission to MBBS/BDS course for the academic year 2013-14. The following chart would indicate the percentage of disability of each of the petitioners.
W.P. No. Petitioner Name Percentage of disability
17199 of 2013 T. Nalini 60%
17200 of 2013 R. Anbumani 60%
17902 of 2013 R. Sangeetha 40%
17201 of 2013 R. Devipriya 70%
3. The petitioners submitted applications before the selection committee claiming seat under the quota reserved for Orthopedically Physically disabled candidates. The petitioners obtained certificate from the District Medical Board and appeared before the Selection Committee for counseling. The petitioners were directed to appear before the expert team constituted by the Director of Medical Education to assess the percentage of disability once again, in the light of the medical certificate issued by the District Medical Board. The expert committee verified the medical certificates of the concerned candidates once again and issued certificates indicating different percentage of disability. The petitioners were denied admission on account of the finding given by the expert committee with regard to disability. The petitioners therefore wanted to quash the clause in the prospectus with regard to the subsequent examination by the expert team to decide the percentage of disability.
4. It is the contention of the petitioners that once disability certificate is issued by the District Medical Board, it is not open to the selection committee to test the said certificate by subjecting the candidate to a fresh medical examination.
5. The Director of Medical Education cum Secretary, Selection Committee, filed a detailed counter affidavit in each of the writ petitions. According to the Secretary, medical examination was conducted in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Medical Council of India. The certificate issued by the District Medical Board is not final. Prospectus was issued with a definite purpose taking into account the guidelines issued by the Medical Council of India. The certificate issued by the District Medical Board requires to be examined by an expert team comprising experts in all the field. Therefore, there was nothing wrong in conducting fresh examination by the medical team nominated by the Director of Medical Education.
Submissions:
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the District Medical Board issued certificates indicating the percentage of disability. The certificate was issued on a permanent basis and as such, it was not open to the Selection Committee to direct the candidates to undergo medical examination once again. The learned counsels jointly contended that the second examination was just an eye wash intended to deny benefits to the deserving Orthopedically Physically disabled candidates and to transfer the seats to general category.
7. The learned Special Government Pleader by giving facts and figures contended that experts were not part of the District Medical Board and at times, certificates were given in a routine manner. The Medical Council of India wanted the selection committee to adopt a uniform policy in the matter of assessment of disability. It was only on account of the guidelines issued by Medical Council of India, the Government adopted a policy to reassess the disability at the time of counseling, without reference to the disability certificates issued by the District Medical Board. The learned Government Pleader contended that the petitioners were examined in detail
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
