Back
2015 Supreme(Tri) 653
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
DEEPAK GUPTA, U. B. SAHA, JJ.
Sri Pranay Kumar Podder & Anr. – Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Tripura - Respondents
WP(C) No.244 of 2015 along with WP(C) No.252 of 2015
Decided On : 26.8.2015
For the petitioners:Mr. A Bhowmik, Advocate.
For the respondents:Mr. T D Majumder, Govt. Advocate.
The Medical Council of India, as the expert body, has the authority to determine the eligibility criteria for admission to medical colleges, and its decisions are binding.
Headnote:
Colour Blindness - MBBS Admission - Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - Chapter II Regulation 4, Medical Council of India - 3. 3% seats of the annual sanctioned intake capacity shall be filled up by candidates with locomotory disability of lower limbs between 50% to 70% - Writ Petition No.184 of 2005, Dr. Kumar Sourav Vs Union of India and Ors
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who qualified in the written examination for MBBS admission, were denied admission solely due to colour blindness. The Medical Council of India had made provisions for reservation in the MBBS course for disabled candidates, but only for those with lower limb disabilities between 50% to 70%.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Medical Council of India, as the expert body, had determined that normal colour vision is necessary for a competent doctor and had made a decision that colour blind or visually impaired persons cannot be admitted to the MBBS course.
Issues: The main issue was whether a person suffering from colour blindness is eligible for admission into the MBBS course.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Medical Council of India, empowered by the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, is responsible for laying down guidelines for admission to medical colleges, and the courts cannot overturn its decisions. Additionally, where Regulations are silent, executive orders and decisions can fill up the gap.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were rejected, and the court upheld the decision of the Medical Council of India that colour blind or visually impaired persons cannot be admitted to the MBBS course.
Deepak Gupta, CJ.
Both the petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment since the following question is involved in these petitions :
“Whether a person who is suffering from colour blindness is eligible to be admitted into the MBBS course?”
2. It is not disputed that both the petitioners have otherwise qualified in the written examination to be admitted into the MBBS course. They have been denied admission solely on the ground that they suffer from colour blindness and hence they cannot be admitted in the course.
3. The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 makes provision for reservation even in favour of disabled candidates but the question is who are the candidates eligible for admission? The criteria for admission is laid down in the instructions issued in the Regulations of the Medical Council of India which have been annexed along with the petition. The general criteria with regard to age, educational qualifications etc. is given in Chapter II Regulation 4. This regulation does not give any medical criteria. One Clause has been added after Clause 2(f) in terms of notification published on 25th March, 2009 by the Medical Council of India and the said Clause reads as follows :
“3. 3% seats of the annual sanctioned intake capacity shall be filled up by candidates with locomotory disability of lower limbs between 50% to 70%.
Provided that in case any seat in this 3% quota remains unfilled on account of unavailability of candidates with locomotory disability of lower limbs between 50% to 70% then any such unfilled seat in this 3% quota shall be filled up by persons with locomotory disability of lower limbs between 40% to 50% - before they are included in the annual sanctioned seats for General Category candidates.
Provided further that this entire exercise shall be completed by each medical college/instruction as per the statutory time schedule for admissions and in no case any admission will be made in the MBBS course after 30th September.”
4. As far as reserved category for disabled persons is concerned, the Medical Council of India has taken a decision that 3% of seats shall be reserved in the MBBS course but these shall be available only to those persons who are suffering with disability of lower limbs between 50% to 70%. In case the 3% quota remains unfilled on account of unavailability of candidates in this category then the 3% quota shall be filled up with those having locomotive disability of lower limbs between 40% to 50%. It is thus obvious that the Medical Council has not made any reservation for visually impaired persons or hearing impaired persons. Reservation has been made only for persons having disability in the lower limb and that too between the percentage of 50% to 70%. If anybody has disability of more than 70% to the lower limb that person would not be eligible to get a seat in the MBBS course.
5. It is contended by Mr. A Bhowmik, learned counsel for the petitioners that there is nothing in the Rules or Regulations of the Medical Council of India which prohibits a person suffering from colour blindness from getting admission to the course. He submits that the petitioners are not seeking benefit of reservation under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 but have been selected on their own merit and are only praying that since the regulations do not lay down any condition with regard to the eligibility or non-eligibility of a person suffering from colour blindness the authorities have no right to reject their candidature.
6. We may have now make reference to certain documents relied upon by the State. It would be pertinent to mention that the Medical Council of India constituted an Expert Committee to consider the eligibility of colour blind students for admission to the MBBS course. This Expert Committee gave the following opinion :
“The expert committee deliberate
