Goldi D/O Ravi Sunkarwar vs Maharashtra Universtiy Of Health ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 916 Bom

                                                                                        wp2569.13.odt

                                                      1

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                                 WRIT PETITION NO.2569/2013

     PETITIONER:                Goldi d/o Ravi Sunkarwar, 
                                aged about 18 years, Occ. : Student, 
                                R/o Thakre Layout, Abhay Nagar, Nagpur.

                                           ...VERSUS...

     RESPONDENTS :    1.  Maharashtra University of Health Science, 
                           Nashik, through its Registrar, 
                           Dindori Road, Mhasrul, Nashik - 422 004.

                                2.  Dean,
                                     Government of Medical College, 
                                     Nagpur, Divisional Authority for C.E.T., Nagpur.

                                3.  Medical Council of India, 
                                     Through it's Secretary, Sector 8, 
                                     PKT 14, Dwarka, New Delhi - 77.

                                      (Amended as per Court's order 
                                        dt. 9/5/13)
     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Shri R.J. Mirza, Advocate for petitioner 
                         Shri Abhijit Deshpande, Advocate for respondent no.1
                         Shri A.S. Fulzele, Addl. G.P. for respondent no.2
                         Shri R.M. Bhangde, Advocate for respondent no.3
     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    CORAM  :  SMT. VASANTI  A  NAIK, AND
                                                                      V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.

DATE : 21.03.2017

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)

By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction against the

respondent no.1 - University to permit the petitioner to appear at the first

year M.B.B.S. examination and further restrain the respondent no.1 -

wp2569.13.odt

University from disqualifying or restraining the petitioner from appearing

in the subsequent examinations. The petitioner seeks a direction against

the respondent no.3 - Medical Council of India to declare that approval is

not required for the admission of the petitioner and/or to grant approval

to the admission of the petitioner within a specific time and to take all

consequential steps in that regard.

When the matter came up for admission on 9.5.2013, we

had permitted the petitioner to appear at the first year M.B.B.S.

examination. While admitting the petition on 22.7.2014, we had observed

that the petitioner had made out a strong prima facie case by relying on

the judgment in Writ Petition No.3344/2012 and the provisions of the

Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and

Full Participation) Act, 1995 and after so observing, we had protected the

education of the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition. We

had made it clear that the petitioner should be permitted to attend the

classes to appear at the examinations and the university should declare

the result of the petitioner after every examination.

It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has

passed the final M.B.B.S. examination in the month of February, 2017 and

hence, an appropriate order may be passed.

wp2569.13.odt

Since the petitioner was permitted to appear at the M.B.B.S.

examinations in view of our interim orders and since the petitioner has

passed the final M.B.B.S. examination and since the issue involved in this

case relates only to the percentage of disability suffered by the petitioner

and/or whether she was entitled to admission in the M.B.B.S. course on

the basis of the said disability in the quota meant for the persons with

disabilities, it would be necessary to allow the writ petition in terms of our

interim orders by making the Rule absolute in those terms. Since the

question involved in this case pertains only to the entitlement of the

petitioner to admission on a seat meant for the specially challenged and

since the petitioner was permitted by our interim orders to prosecute the

M.B.B.S. course and the petitioner has completed the said course, the writ

petition is liable to be disposed of.

Hence, by making the Rule absolute in terms of our interim

orders, the writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. It is

needless to mention that in view of our interim orders, the admission of

the petitioner is deemed to have been regularized and the petitioner

would be entitled to all benefits that are available to a regular student,

admitted to the M.B.B.S. course. Order accordingly.

                      JUDGE                                                             JUDGE
     Wadkar