IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, K. RAJASEKAR, JJ.
The Chairman, Admission Committee-UG, Tamil Nadu Veterinay and Animal Sciences University – Appellant
Versus
Minor S. Subasri, D/o. Sivakumaran, Represented by her natural guardian Sivakumaran – Respondent
WA.No.613 of 2025 and CMP.No.4925 of 2025
Decided On : 03-04-2025
(A) Writ of Mandamus - Admission Committee - Disability Certificate - The writ order dated 18.10.2024 was challenged by the Admission Committee regarding the allocation of a seat for the respondent in the B.V.Sc course under the physically disabled category. The respondent's application was rejected despite a 60% disability certificate from the District Medical Board, which was contrary to the Admission Committee's guidelines. (Paras 3, 4, 10, 12)
(B) Eligibility Criteria - The prospectus clearly states that only certificates from the Medical Board constituted by the Admission Committee will be considered for admission, and the decision of this Board is final. The respondent's claim based on a different disability assessment was deemed invalid. (Paras 9, 11)
(C) Findings of Court - The Medical Board assessed the respondent's disability at 25%, rendering her ineligible for admission as per the established criteria. (Paras 10, 12)
(D) Issues - The main issues addressed were the validity of the disability certificates and the adherence to the prospectus guidelines by the Admission Committee. (Paras 6, 11) (E) Ratio Decidendi - The court held that the Admission Committee's decision to rely on its Medical Board's assessment was justified and binding, thus upholding the rejection of the respondent's application based on external certificates. (Paras 10, 12) (F) Result - The Writ Order dated 18.10.2024 is set aside and the Writ Appeal is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
(S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
The writ order dated 18.10.2024 passed in W.P.No.27732 of 2024 is sought to be assailed in the present intra-court appeal.
2. The Chairman, Admission Commisttee - UG, Tamil Nadu Veterinay and Animal Sciences University is the appellant before this Court.
3. The respondent filed a writ of mandamus to direct the Chairman, Admission Committee - UG to allocate one seat for the respondent in course of B.V.Sc under the physically disabled category and provide reason for the rejection of the respondent during the first counselling conducted on 04.09.2024.
4. The writ Court considered the issue and made a finding that the District Medical Board, Villupuram have already given a disability certificate on 21.08.2024 by assessing the disability of the respondent at 60%. The Government of India also issued a permanent Identity card to the respondent on 05.08.2022 by assessing 60% disability to the respondent. Without considering those certificates issued by Government of Tamil Nadu and Government of India, the application submitted by the respondent was rejected which is contrary to the notification issued by the appellant. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed.
5. Dissatisfied with the orders of the writ Court, the Admission Committee preferred the present intra-court appeal.
6. Mr.S.Vijayakumar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would mainly contend that the disability certificate obtained by the Government of Tamil Nadu or any other Medical Board will not be accepted by the Admission Committee and the said application will be considered only for receiving the application and after selection process and during the course of counselling, the Medical Board constituted by the Admission Committee will examine the percentage of disability and that alone will be taken into consideration for the purpose of admitting a student. When it is notified in the prospectus itself in clear terms that the Admission Committee will conduct examination through the Board constituted by the Admission Committee, the respondent cannot rely on the disability certificate issued by the Tamil Nadu Government Authority or the Government of India. In the present case, the Medical Board constituted by the Admission Committee examined the respondent and found that the respondent suffer 25% disability and therefore, not eligible for admission to B.V.Sc Course. The learned single Judge has not considered the prospectus which is binding on the applicants and therefore, the writ appeal is to be considered.
7. Ms.CP.Selvin Jenith, the learned Counsel for the respondent would oppose by stating that even an interim order passed by the writ Court has not been complied with. One seat was directed to be reserved, which was not done. That apart, the respondent suffered disability of 60% and the same was assessed by the Government of Tamil Nadu and the Medical Board. The writ Court taking into consideration the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board of the Government of Tamil Nadu and Government of India granted the relief and thus the writ appeal is to be rejected.
8. This Court considered the arguments made between the parties to the lis on hand.
9. Prospects for admission to undergraduate degree programmes for the Academic Year 2024-25 was issued. Clause 4.3.1 provides for Differently-abled [BVSc & AH and BTech(FT/PT/DT]. The relevant portion of the said clause reads as under:
"...................
THIS RESERVATION IS PROVIDED ONLY FOR THE CATEGORY OF LOCOMOTOR DISORDERS OF LOWER LIMBS RANGING FROM 40% TO 80%. ANY OTHER DISABILITY WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED.
Candidates with less than 40% disabilities are NOT ELIGIBLE for reservation provided that the candidates are eligible to apply for Undergraduate Degree Programmes of TANUVAS under general category. However, such candidates have to submit a physical fitness certificate. The presence of significant Locomotor Disability with or without any other significant disabili
The Admission Committee's decision to rely solely on its Medical Board's assessment for disability eligibility is binding, and external certificates cannot be considered.
Proper examination and adherence to guidelines for granting disability certificates are crucial, especially in the context of admission to medical courses.
The court prioritizes functional competency over rigid disability percentages in educational admissions for disabled candidates.
The 2016 Act's provisions for certifying disabilities take precedence over extra statutory assessments, ensuring that admissions are based on valid certifications.
The court affirmed the importance of valid disability certificates and the necessity of adhering to established benchmarks for disability in employment decisions.
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.
The court held that a competent authority's disability assessment cannot be altered by another board, and reliance on incomplete medical reports for disqualification is arbitrary.
Exclusion from admission despite valid disability certification violates rights and mandates of reasonable accommodation under disability laws.
The Appellate Medical Board's assessment should be given sanctity, and challenges to the constitution of the Special Medical Board should be raised in the writ petition. The State has a duty to make ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.