Delhi High Court
Sanchit Kapoor vs Union Of India And Ors. on 29 August, 2018
#63,70,71 & 72
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 29.08.2018
W.P.(C) 8207/2018
PRIYANK SHRARMA ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
W.P.(C) 8247/2018
MAHESH KUMAR (MINOR) THROUGH HIS
FATHER BHOOP SINGH GURJAR ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
W.P.(C) 8248/2018
SANCHIT KAPOOR ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
W.P.(C) 8252/2018
KARTIK SINGH SAWHNEY ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
W.P.(C) 8207/2018, W.P.(C) 8247/2018, W.P.(C) 8248/2018 & W.P.(C) 8252/2018 Page 1 of 6
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr. Manu Beri, Mr. Prasenjit Keswani and Mr. Raghvendra Pratap
Singh, Advocates in W.P.(C) 8207/2018
Mr. Jeetender Gupta, Advocate in W.P.(C) 8247/2018, 8248/2018 &
8252/2018
For the Respondents : Mr. Ruchir Mishra, and Mr. Mukesh Kumar Tiwari, Advocates for UOI
Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal and Mr. Prang Newmai, Advocates for
University of Delhi
Mr. T. Singhdev, Mr. Abhijit Chakravarty, Mr. Tarun Verma, Ms. M.
Biakthansangi Das, Ms. Amandeep Kaur and Ms. Puja Sarkar,
Advocates for MCI
Mr. Amit Bansal and Ms. Seema Dolo, Advocates for CBSE
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
JUDGMENT
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)
1. These four petitions raise similar questions of law and fact and are,
therefore, disposed of with this common order.
2. It is an admitted position that the petitioners, cleared the National
Eligibility Cum Entrance Test (hereinafter referred to as 'NEET') (UG)-
2018 and were provisionally granted admission to Maulana Azad Medical
College/University College of Medical Sciences, New Delhi in MBBS
course. The petitioners were granted admission in the physically
handicapped category, based on the benchmark disability suffered by them.
3. Subsequent thereto, on the recommendations of the Expert Committee
set up by the Medical Council of India (for short 'MCI'), the medical
colleges vide the communications impugned herein, dated 02.08.2018,
denied admission to the petitioners on the ground that, owing to their
physical disabilities, they are not eligible to pursue undergraduate medical
education.
4. It is an admitted position that, the aforesaid recommendations of the
Expert Committee have not attained finality, inasmuch as, they are pending
consideration before the Central Government. No amendments in the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said
Act') or in the Regulations framed by the MCI, have been made so far in
order to enforce the said recommendations.
5. Even otherwise, the information bulletin published by the CBSE
clearly provided that, in accordance with the provisions of the said Act and
based on the merit list of the NEET (UG), 5% of the annual sanctioned
intake capacity was mandated to be filled up by candidates with benchmark
disabilities.
6. Aggrieved by the act of commission on behalf of the official
respondents, in precluding them from pursuing their undergraduate medical
education, the petitioners have assailed the impugned orders passed by the
former, by way of the present writ petitions.
7. Vide similar orders, passed on different dates, this Court expressed a
prima facie view that, the recommendations of the Expert Committee, set up
by the MCI, disentitling persons with specified benchmark disability from
pursuing undergraduate medical education, are abhorrent to the principles
enshrined in the Constitution of India and to the provisions of the said Act.
8. In this view of the matter, the University of Delhi was directed not to
offer for counseling the seats to which the petitioners had been granted
provisional admission, to any other candidates, till further orders.
9. Mr. T. Singhdev, learned counsel appearing on behalf of MCI invites
my attention to a judgment and order dated 24.08.2018 in W.P.(C) 669/2018,
titled as Purswani Ashutosh (Minor) Through Dr. Kamlesh Virumal
Purswani vs. Union of India & Ors., rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India.
10. In this behalf, Mr. T. Singhdev, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of MCI fairly states that, in terms of the directions passed in the subject
judgment and order dated 24.08.2018, the present petitions would have to be
allowed.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Purswani's case (supra) has
held as follows:-
"Be that as it may, as mentioned hereinabove, it is not
necessary for this Court to adjudicate the question of
whether Section 32 of the 2016 Act is attracted or not,
in view of the admission that the Medical Education
Regulations which incorporate the provisions of the
2016 Act in relation to reservation to higher
educational institutions, have statutory force and are
binding on the MCI. The regulations have not yet
been amended by the MCI in the light of the
recommendations made by its Committee and the
decision taken at the Secretariat level. No amendment
in the 2016 Act or in the regulations framed by the
MCI have been made so far.
For the reasons discussed above, this Court
holds that the petitioner cannot be denied admission to
the MBBS course if he qualifies as per his merit in the
category of persons with disability. In the event, the
petitioner is found to be entitled to admission, he shall
be given admission in the current academic year 2018-
19."
12. A plain reading of the above extracted paragraph leaves no manner of
doubt that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has found persons with
physical disabilities, entitled to admission to MBBS courses, in the event
they qualify as per merit, in the said category.
13. In view of the foregoing, the present writ petitions are allowed. The
impugned communications denying the petitioners' the right to pursue
undergraduate medical education are accordingly set aside and quashed. The
University of Delhi is directed to confirm the admission granted to the
petitioners forthwith, in the respective medical colleges in the MBBS course
for the academic session 2018-19, subject to completion of all the necessary
formalities.
14. With the above directions, the writ petitions are disposed of.
15. A copy of this judgment be given dasti under the signature of Court
Master to counsel for the parties.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
(JUDGE)
AUGUST 29, 2018
dn
