Ronanki Eswar Shyam Sai vs The Registrar
2021 Latest Caselaw 221 AP

        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI
                           AND
          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

                WRIT PETITION No.24984 of 2020
               (Taken up through video conferencing)

ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Joymalya Bagchi)


      Petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned decision of the

1st respondent-University in holding that he is ineligible for

admission to medical course in Person With Disability (PWD)

category due to visual impairment namely retinitis pigmentosa.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that

appropriate authority under the Rights of Persons With Disabilities

Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'PWD Act, 2016') issued a

certificate stating that he is suffering from visual disability of 40%.

He contends 1st respondent-University has no authority to sit in

judgment over the statutory certificate so issued and he ought to

be allotted a seat as other candidates with 40% disability, who had

obtained lesser marks than to him. In this light, he seeks

impleadment of the said candidates by way of I.A.No.1 of 2021. He

also filed I.A.No.2 of 2021 for amendment of the reliefs in the writ

petition.

Sri G.Vijaya Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for

1st respondent-University, draws our attention to the guidelines

regarding admission of students with 'specified disabilities' under

PWD Act, 2016. He submits any visual impairment equal to 40 or

more percentile disentitles a candidate from admission unless

such impairment may be reduced with advanced low vision aid.

He contends the petitioner has been unable to show that the

nature of his visual impairment may be remedied in such manner.

Hence, he does not stand on same footing with other candidates,

who have been given such benefit.

Issue which arises for decision in the writ petition is whether

the petitioner was eligible to appointment under PH category due

to visual impairment equal to 40% degree. Relevant clause under

guidelines regarding admission of students which has been

disability relating to visual impairment reads as follows:

Type       of       Specified Disability   Eligible for     Eligible    Not Eligible
Disability                                 Medical          for         for  Medical
                                           Course, Not      Medical     Course
                                           Eligible for     Course,
                                           PwD Quota        Eligible
                                                            for PwD
                                                            Quota

B.Visual            a. Blindness           Less      than               Equal to or
Impairment                                 40%                          More       than
(*)                                        disability                   40%
                    b. Low vision                                       Disability

(*) Persons with Visual Impairment/visual disability of more than 40% may be made eligible to pursue MBBS Course and may be given reservation, subject to the condition that the visual disability is brought to a level of less than the benchmark of 40% with advanced low vision aids

It is patently clear from the aforesaid clause visual

impairment equal to or more than 40 percentile would ordinarily

disentitle a candidate for medical admission unless such

impairment may be brought below the benchmark of 40% by

advanced low visual aid. The petitioner is found to suffer from

retinitis pigmentosa and nothing has been placed on record to

show that such impairment may be brought below 40% through

advanced visual aid. Under these circumstances, we are

constrained to observe that the decision of the 1st respondent

holding that the petitioner ineligible for admission in the PH

category cannot be said to be contrary to law or relevant guidelines

or that he had been discriminated vis-a-vis other candidates, who

have been appointed in the aforesaid category. For the aforesaid

reasons, we find no merit in the writ petition.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. In view of

dismissal of the writ petition, I.A.No.1 of 2021 and I.A.No.2 of 2021

are also dismissed. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this

Writ Petition shall stand closed.

______________________________ JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI

__________________________ JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

Date: 20.01.2021 Note: Issue CC within a week (B/o) Ivd