SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Mad) 1636

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
R. Sakeela - Petitioner
Versus
The Secretary to Government Higher Education Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P.(MD)No. 15696 of 2019 & W.M.P.(MD) No. 12495 of 2019
Decided On : 30-07-2019

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:S.R. Anbarasu, Advocate.
For the Respondents:K. Chellapandian, Additional Advocate General assisted by V. Anand, Government Advocate.

The court emphasized the statutory backing of the amended regulations and the binding nature of the prospectus, which governed the eligibility criteria and the validity of disability certificates for admission in the medical course.

Headnote:

Mandamus - Admission in MBBS course - Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, Rules 2017 - Regulations of Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) 2019 - The court discussed the eligibility criteria for admission in MBBS course under 5% physically disabled persons quota, the impact of the amended regulations, and the validity of disability certificates issued by different medical authorities. The court held that the petitioner, with 85% locomotor disability, was not eligible for admission in the medical course under any quota.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a minor, applied for admission in MBBS course under 5% physically disabled persons quota. Her candidature was rejected during counselling due to 85% locomotor disability, which exceeded the eligibility criteria of 40-80% disability.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's disability exceeded the permissible limit for admission in the medical course, as per the amended regulations, and her claim for admission was dismissed.

Issues: The eligibility criteria for admission in MBBS course under 5% physically disabled persons quota and the validity of disability certificates issued by different medical authorities.

Ratio Decidendi: The amended regulations of Graduate Medical Education 2019 prescribed the eligibility criteria for admission, and the disability certificate issued by the named medical authority prevailed over others. The prospectus between the parties bound both of them and had the force of law.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner's claim for admission in the medical course was rejected.

JUDGMENT :

1. The prayer in the Writ Petition is for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to admit the petitioner in MBBS course for the academic year 2019-2020 from the quota reserved for persons with disabilities, relying upon the disability certificate dated 21.05.2019 issued to the petitioner by the Regional Medical Board, Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital, Tirunelveli, by considering the petitioner's application No.505847.

2. The short facts, which are required to be noticed for the disposal of the writ petition, are as follows:

That the petitioner is a minor, who, having completed the +2, applied for NEET examination for medical admission and after having got through the NEET examination, she applied to the respondents for getting admission in first year MBBS course for the year 2019-20 under 5% physically disabled persons quota. The application of the petitioner, having been considered by the respondents, they called the petitioner for counselling by counselling call letter under Orthopaedically physically disabled special category quota to attend counselling on 08.07.2019 at 9.00 a.m.

3. However, at the time of counselling, it seems that, after having perused the certificates produced by the petitioner, the respondents/selection authorities found that, the petitioner suffered with 85% locomotor disability, which is a Bench Mark disability and according to the prospectus issued by the respondents, since those who suffered with more than 80% disability would not be eligible to be admitted in MBBS course, therefore, on that ground the candidature of the petitioner had been rejected during the counselling. Challenging such rejection, this writ petition has been filed.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, who would submit that, the petitioner suffered with locomotor disability and in this regard, the District Medical Board, after having examined the petitioner, has given a permanent disability certificate on 21.05.2019 with 70% locomotor disability and in this regard, the said certificate has been relied upon by the learned counsel. He would also submit that, despite the said certificate, having been issued by the District Medical Board, since the respondents, in the prospectus, insisted upon the petitioner and other similarly placed persons, who seek admission under physically disabled quota of 5%, the petitioner subjected herself for the medical examination before the Medical Board constituted in this regard at Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Chennai, (formerly, Madras Medical College) and accordingly the said Medical Board at Rajiv Gandhi General Hospital, Chennai, having examined the petitioner, had issued a disability certificate on 17.06.2019 stating that, the petitioner suffered with 85% locomotor disability.

5. In this context, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, once the District Medical Board, which is a body constituted, gives certificate for disabled persons for various purposes, after examining the petitioner just one month before, where they mentioned only 70% disability, the present disability certificate given for the purpose of medical admission by the Medical Board constituted from Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Chennai cannot prevail over the said certificate issued by the District Medical Board.

6. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of this Court, by a learned Judge made in W.P.(MD) Nos.9814 of 2012 and 9849 of 2012, in the matter of A.Ramachandran and K.Loga Rajeshwaran v. Government of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary, Higher Education Department and two others. In the said judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following passages:

“14. On consideration, I find no force in the contention of the respondents. The certificate on which the reliance is pla

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top