Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Anand Pathak and Binod Kumar Dwivedi, JJ.
Sojal Agrawal v. The State of M. P. & Others
Writ Petition No. 4700 of 2022 (Gwalior);
Decided on 29.7.2024
(1) Medical Education -- persons with disability -- distinctive activities which cannot be performed by a person may oust him from zone of consideration and that does not constitute discrimination. [Para 22]
(2) Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 -- Ss. 2 (zc), 3 and 32 -- petitioner suffers from 65% locomotor disability -- entitled to avail benefits of PwD in accordance with law if profession/skill/work environment permits him to do particular job involving public lives or it does not fall under such category where exceptional or rare functions are to be performed. [Para 22]
(3) Medical Council Act, 1956 -- S. 33(l) -- guidelines issued by MCI, in which persons with certain disabilities cannot pursue medical course -- do not fall under discrimination. [Para 23]
(4) Medical Council Act, 1956 -- Ss. 33(l) -- National Medical Commission Act, 2019 -- Ss. 57, 60 and 61 -- validity of guidelines dated 4.2.2019 regarding admission of students with “specified disabilities” in MBBS course -- held -- guidelines regarding conditions of admission were issued prior to dissolution -- rules and regulations made under erstwhile IMC Act, 1956 were saved and continued to be in force till new standards or requirements are made -- by effect of Ss. 60 and 61 of NMC Act, 2019, earlier guidelines dated 4.2.2019 issued by MCI get legitimacy and are applicable over case of present petitioner -- subsequent Minimum Requirements for Annual MBBS Admission Regulation, 2020 framed in exercise of power u/s. 57 of NMC Act, 2019 not applicable in case of petitioner because it moves in different realm of medical education and not in respect of conduct of professional examinations and conditions of admission to such examination -- till new regulations are promulgated by NMC replacing guidelines dated 4.2.2019, these guidelines by MCI would prevail and be applicable. [Paras 25 to 29
(5) Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 -- Ss. 2 (zc), 3 and 32 -- Medical Council Act, 1956 -- Ss. 33(l) -- petitioner suffers from 65% locomotor disability -- denied admission in MBBS course despite being selected in NEET PG and being allotted college in counselling -- held -- guidelines dated 4.2.2019 specifically prescribe certain standards and those standards are taken care of in S. 3 of RPwD Act -- larger public interest and purpose (for such exceptional circumstances as carved out) are to be adhered to -- no discrimination caused. (1988) 2 SCC 351, (1989) 4 SCC 187, (2000) 3 SCC 40, 2011 (11) SCC 136, (2021) 5 SCC 370 and (2023) 2 SCC 286 distinguished. (2023) 2 SCC 209 followed. [Para 30]
¼1½ fpfdRlk f'k{kk & fnO;kaxtu & fdlh O;fä }kjk tks lqfuf'pr xfrfof/k;k¡ ugha dh tk ldrha muds dkj.k og fopkj{ks= ls ckgj fd;k ldrk gS & blls foHksn xfBr ugha gksrkA ¼iSjk 22½
¼2½ fnO;kaxtu vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e] 2016 & /kkjk 2 ¼tsMlh½] 3 rFkk 32 & ;kph 65 Áfr'kr xfrfo"k;d fnO;kaxrk ls xzLr ' ;fn o`fÙk@dkS'ky@dk;Z ifjos'k mls yksd thou varoZfyr djus okyk dksbZ fof'k"V dk;Z djus nsrk gS vFkok og dk;Z ,sls çoxZ esa ugha vkrk ftlesa vkiokfnd ;k fojys —R; fd, tkuk gksrs gSa] rks ;kph fof/k ds vuqlkj fnO;kaxtu ds Qk;ns çkIr djus dk gdnkj gSA ¼iSjk 22½
¼3½ fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ vf/kfu;e] 1956 & /kkjk 33¼B½ & fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ }kjk tkjh ekxZnf'kZdk] ftlesa dfri; fnO;kaxtu fpfdRlk ikB;Øe dk v/;;u ugha dj ldrs & foHksn esa ugha vkrhA ¼iSjk 23½
¼4½ fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ vf/kfu;e] 1956 & /kkjk 33¼B½ & jk"Vªh; vk;qfoZKku vk;ksx vf/kfu;e] 2019 & /kkjk 57] 60 rFkk 61 & ^^fofufnZ"V fnO;kaxrk** okys fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds ,echch,l ikB~;Øe esa ços'k lacaf/kr ekxZnf'kZdk fnukad 4-2-2019 dh fof/kekU;rk & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & ços'k dh 'krksZ ls lacaf/kr ekxZnf'kZdk fo?kVu ls iwoZ tkjh dh xbZ Fkh & rRdkyhu fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ vf/kfu;e] 1956 ds v/khu cuk, x, fu;e rFkk fofu;e O;ko`Ùk fd, x, rFkk uohu ekunaM ;k vis{kk,¡ cuk, tkus rd ço`Ùk j[ks x, & vk;qfoZKku vk;ksx vf/kfu;e] 2019 dh /kkjk 60 rFkk 61 ds çHkko ls] fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ }kjk tkjh dh xbZ iwoZrj ekxZnf'kZdk fnukad 4-2-2019 fofèklaxr gks tkrh gS rFkk ;kph ds çdj.k dks ykxw gksrh gS & vk;qfoZKku vk;ksx vf/kfu;e] 2019 dh /kkjk 57 ds v/khu 'kfä ds ç;ksx ls fojfpr ijorhZ okf"kZd ,echch,l ços'k ds fy, U;wure vis{kk,¡ fofu;e] 2020 ;kph ds çdj.k dks ykxw ugha D;ksafd og fpfdRlk f'k{kk ds fHkUu {ks= esa gS rFkk o`fÙkd ijh{kkvksa ds lapkyu vkSj ,slh ijh{kkvksa esa ços'k dh 'krksaZ ls lacaf/kr ugha & tc rd vk;qfoZKku vk;ksx }kjk ekxZnf'kZdk fnukad 4-2-2019 dks çfrLFkkfir djrs gq, uohu fofu;e ç[;kfir ugha fd, tkrs] fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ dh ;g ekxZnf'kZdk vfHkHkkoh rFkk ykxw jgsxhA ¼iSjk 25 ls 29½
¼5½ fnO;kaxtu vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e] 2016 & /kkjk 2 ¼tsMlh½] 3 rFkk 32 & fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ vf/kfu;e] 1956 & /kkjk 33¼B½ & ;kph 65 Áfr'kr xfrfo"k;d fnO;kaxrk ls xzLr ' uhV LukrdksÙkj esa p;fur gksus rFkk ijke'kZ esa egkfo|ky; vkcafVr fd, tkus ds ckotwn ,echch,l ikB~;Øe esa ços'k fn, tkus ls bUdkj & vfHkfu/kkZfjr ' ekxZnf'kZdk fnukad 4-2-2019 esa dfri; ekunaM fofufnZ"Vr% fofgr fd, x, gSa rFkk mu ekunaMksaa dk fnO;kaxtu vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 3 esa /;ku j[kk x;k gS ' c`gÙkj yksd fgr rFkk ¼i`Fkd~ ls ;Fkk mfYyf[kr vkiokfnd ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds fy,½ ç;kstu dh vuq'kfä dh tkuk gksrh gS & dksbZ foHksn dkfjr ughaA ¼1988½ 2 ,llhlh 351] ¼1989½ 4 ,llhlh 187] ¼2000½ 3 ,llhlh 40] 2011 ¼11½ ,llhlh 136] ¼2021½ 5 ,llhlh 370 rFkk ¼2023½ 2 ,llhlh 286 çHksfnrA ¼2023½ 2 ,llhlh 209 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 30½
ORDER
Pathak, J. - 1 .The present petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking following reliefs :--
i) That, order impugned dated 19.2.2022 (Annexure P-1) may kindly be quashed;
ii) That, the action of the respondents in not permitting the petitioner to attend the MBBS classes in respondent No.3 college may kindly be treated as illegal and respondent No.3 college may kindly be directed to permit the petitioner to attend the classes.
iii) That, action of the respondents, in denying the admission to the petitioner despite being selected in NEET P.G., 2021 and despite being allotted respondent No.3 college in the counselling, may kindly be quashed.
2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner is a student and after clearing his High School Examination, he participated in the National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test (NEET) Under Graduation Course (U.G.), 2021. Petitioner participated in the examination under the category “Person with Disability” (PwD). According to him, he has disability up to 65% in his left arm and disability certificate in that behalf is issued by the Government District Hospital, Morena (Annexure P-4).
3. Petitioner stood successful in the examination and secured 2391 rank. In the Madhya Pradesh State Combined NEET-UG Counselling 2021, petitioner was allotted Government Medical College, Datia (respondent No.3 herein) under “Unreserved Physically Handicapped” category (UR-PH-OP). According to the petitioner, he was eligible under the Mukhyamantri Medhavi Vidyarthi Yojna for waiver of college fee, thus, remaining fee was deposited by the petitioner. Before granting admission, medical checkup of petitioner was also done by the Medical Board, Datia. Therefore, according to the petitioner, it was the case where petitioner rightly got admission on merits being PwD. Later on, it appears from the proceedings that Dean of the Medical College found that since petitioner is handicapped by his one hand (left hand) therefore, he cannot become a doctor. Hence, the said authority passed an order dated 19.2.2022 (Annexure P-1) and cancelled the admission of petitioner relying upon the notification dated 4.2.2019 issued by Medical Council of India (MCI). Therefore, petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently submits that petitioner belongs to Economic Weaker section and is suffering from Locomotor disability to the extent of 65% which has been duly certified by the competent Certifying Officer in terms of section 58 of The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 (hereinafter referred as “RPwD Act 2016”) and since he was eligible for his admission in MBBS course, therefore, was rightly given admission under the reservation quota of Handicapped Category in terms of provision of section 32 of RPwD Act 2016.
5. According to him, admission of petitioner in MBBS course was cancelled on reconsideration of Sub-Clause –F of Clause -1 of Appendix-H of Amendment Notification as published in Rajpatra of Bharat dated 4.2.2019 by MCI for amending the “Regulation on Graduate Medical Examination”. MCI was constituted under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred as “Act 1956”) and MCI was dissolved by the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred as “NMC Act”) which came into force on 8.8.2019. In pursuance thereof, National Medical Commission was constituted.
6. On 15.6.2017, the Central Government in exercise of powers under section 100 of RPwD Act 2016 framed Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred as “Rules 2017”) which came into force on 15.6.2017. Similarly, National Medial Commission in exercise of powers conferred under section 57 of NMC Act framed “Minimum Requirements for Annual M.B.B.S. Admission Regulation 2020” (hereinafter referred as “Regulation 2020”) which was published in Gazette Notification dated 28.10.2020. Therefore, after publication of this regulation, by vi
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of meeting the eligibility criteria, including the condition of both hands being intact with intact sensation, sufficient strength, ....
The court upheld the validity of amended eligibility regulations for medical admissions requiring intact limbs and functional competency, emphasizing adherence to application timelines as lawful and ....
A person with benchmark disability cannot be denied admission in medical courses if they qualify according to merit and applicable reservation provisions.
Quantified disability alone cannot disqualify candidates from educational opportunities; individual assessments must determine eligibility based on the ability to pursue the course.
The court affirmed that candidates with 40-80% disability are eligible for medical courses, promoting inclusivity in education.
Exclusion from admission despite valid disability certification violates rights and mandates of reasonable accommodation under disability laws.
The regulations setting eligibility criteria for students with specified disabilities, including the requirement for intact hands, were found to be valid and proportionate means to achieve excellence....
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
