The assessment of disabilities under statutory guidelines by competent authorities must be prioritized over any subsequent assessments made by non-statutory boards for admission to medical courses.

Headnote:(A) Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Section 32 - Assessment of disability for medical course admissions - Petitioners, certified with benchmark disabilities by competent authorities, were wrongfully excluded from the PD reservation list by the State Medical Board based on lesser assessments. The court found that the assessment by the State Medical Board is not competent to supersede valid certificates issued under the RPwD Act. The reservation rights under the RPwD must be honored by the admissions committee. (Paras 2, 16, 38)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners were certified as persons with benchmark disabilities of 40% and above but were not included in the reservation category for MBBS due to assessments indicating disabilities under 40%. They challenged this exclusion arguing that it disregarded their valid certifications under the RPwD Act. (Paras 3, 4)

Findings of Court:
The court held that the State Medical Board exceeded its authority by undermining statutory certifications and emphasized that reservations for persons with disabilities must be guaranteed per the RPwD Act. (Paras 36, 37)

Issues: Whether the assessment of disabilities by the State Medical Board and State Level Committee can override certifications given by competent authorities under the RPwD Act for medical course admissions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the procedure under the RPwD Act provides a statutory mechanism for assessing disabilities, which cannot be invalidated by assessments conducted by unauthorized bodies. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the legal framework established for the rights of persons with disabilities. (Paras 20, 36)

Result: The Writ Petitions were allowed, directing the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations to reassess the eligibility of the petitioners based on their statutory certifications.

JUDGMENT

[WP(C) Nos.29723/2024, 28507/2024 & 29803/2024]

....

The petitioners in these Writ Petitions are aggrieved by the assessment of physical disability made by the State Medical Board and the State Level Committee constituted by the State Government, to assess the physical disability and suitability of the candidates, for considering them for admission to the MBBS and other medical courses, as contemplated in the prospectus issued for KEAM 2024.

2. In all these cases, the petitioners were certified by the competent authorities under the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016(hereinafter referred to as the RPwD Act, 2016) as persons with benchmark disability having sustained an extent of disability of 40% and above. As per Section 32 of the RPwD Act 2016, all Government institutions of higher education and other higher educational institutions receiving aid from the government shall reserve not less than 5% seats for persons with benchmark disabilities.

3. Being eligible for the reservation contemplated under Section 32 of the RPwD Act, 2016, all the petitioners have submitted their applications. As part of processing the said applications, the petitioners were subjected to examination by a State Medical Board constituted by the State Government and an assessment was made as contemplated under clause 5.3 of the prospectus, a copy of which is marked as Ext.P8 in WP(C) No.29803/2024. In the said assessment, all the petitioners were found to be having physical disabilities to the extent of less than 40%. Thereafter, further scrutiny was conducted by the State Level Committee constituted as per the prospectus and final decisions were taken in the matter of the petitioners and the said decisions were to the effect that, even though the petitioners are suitable for pursuing the medical courses, they are not entitled to admission under the quota set apart for physically disabled candidates. Based on the same, the petitioners were not included in the category-wise list published by the Commissioner for Entrance Examination for physically disabled candidates. These Writ Petitions were filed by the petitioners in such circumstances, seeking various reliefs, including the inclusion of their names in the category-wise list for physically disabled candidates.

4. In all these Writ Petitions, detailed counter affidavits/statements were filed by the Commissioner of Entrance Examination. The main contention raised by the Commissioner is to the effect that, the constitution of State Medical Board and State Level Committee, and the assessments made by them, are matters specifically mentioned in clause 5.3 of the prospectus which is not under challenge in any of the writ petitions. It was also averred that, the State Medical Board as well as the State Level Committee were formed with the sole purpose of identifying the proper eligible candidates who satisfy the criteria of benchmark disability, so as to ensure that, the reservation contemplated under RPwD Act, 2016 is received by the persons who are most eligible for the same. It was also averred that all the petitioners have participated in the admission process, after clearly understanding the terms and conditions in the prospectus, including clause 5.3, and therefore, after undergoing the admission process, they cannot now turn around and challenge the decision taken by the authorities concerned, not to include them in the RPwD quota. Thus, the dismissal of the writ petitions was sought by the respondents.

5. Heard Sri. P. Deepak, the learned Senior Counsel who was assisted by Sri.Deepak Raj, the learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No.29803/2024 and WP(C) No.29723/2024, Smt. Thulasi K. Raj, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C)No.28507/2024, Sri P.G.Pramod, learned Government Pleader for the Entrance Commissioner and Sri Nirmal S. Standing Counsel for National Testing Agency, and Sri Prenjith Kumar, learned Counsel for the National Medical Commission.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 84858

The assessment of disabilities under statutory guidelines by competent authorities must be prioritized over any subsequent assessments made by non-statutory boards for admission to medical courses.

Cases Referred (3)