Kerala High Court
Aswathy.P vs Union Of India on 25 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 5TH MAGHA, 1942
WP(C).No.27225 OF 2020(C)
PETITIONER:
ASWATHY.P,
AGED 20 YEARS, D/O.MURALIDHARAN P.K.,
PALLIKATTU HOUSE, PULVETTA P.O.,
KARUVARAKUNDU, KAKKARA, MALAPPURAM-676523.
BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF
EVACUATION, SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110001.
2 SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NIRMAN BHAWAN,
NEW DELHI-110011.
3 NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN (FORMERLY MEDICAL
COUNCIL OF INDIA), POCKET-14, SECTOR-8,
DWARKA PHASE-1, NEW DELHI-110077.
4 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001, KERALA.
5 THE CONVENOR,
NEET, CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION,
SIKSHA KENDRA, 2-COMMUNITY CENTRE,
PREET VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110092.
W.P.(C) No.27225 of 2020
..2..
6 NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY,
REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR GENERAL,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, MINISTRY OF
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT,
R.K.PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066.
7 MEDICAL BOARD FOR DISABILITY (DESIGNATED
DISABILITY CENTRE) MEDICAL COLLEGE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, MEDICAL COLLEGE
HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695011.
8 THE PRINCIPAL,
GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE, MANJERI,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676121, KERALA.
R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.JAISHANKAR V.NAIR
R3 BY ADV. SRI.TITUS MANI
R6 BY ADV. SHRI.NIRMAL S, SC, NATIONAL
TESTING AGENCY
ADV.V.MANU SPL. GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 13-01-2021, THE COURT ON 25-01-2021 DELIVERED THE FOL-
LOWING:
W.P.(C) No.27225 of 2020
..3..
C.R.
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
-------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.27225 of 2020
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of January, 2021
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is a person suffering from Cerebral Palsy. The
issue in this case relates to the right of the petitioner to claim
admission to MBBS course against the quota earmarked for
'Persons with Disability'.
2. The petitioner appeared for the National
Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test, 2020 (the Test) to secure admission to
MBBS Course. She secured rank No.344859 in the Test. As per
Clause 4(3) of the Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate
Medical Education, 1997 (the Regulations), 5% seats of the annual
sanctioned intake capacity in Government and Government aided
Institutions shall be filled up by candidates with benchmark
disabilities in terms of the provisions of the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016 (the Act) based on their rank in the Test,
subject to the eligibility in terms of Appendix H-1 to the
Regulations. In terms of the Act, a candidate with benchmark
W.P.(C) No.27225 of 2020
..4..
disability is a candidate with not less than forty per cent of a
specified disability and the specified disability is any one of the
disabilities specified in the Schedule to the Act. Cerebral Palsy is a
specified disability. Appendix H-1, however, provides that in order
to claim admission against the quota earmarked for `Persons with
Disability', the disability of candidates suffering from Cerebral Palsy
shall not be more than 80%. In the second round of allotment
against all India quota, the petitioner was provisionally allotted a
seat at the Government Medical College, Manjeri. Ext.P5 is the
provisional allotment letter issued to the petitioner. As per the
prospectus, a candidate seeking admission under the quota
earmarked for 'Persons with Disability' has to produce a Certificate
of Disability from the Designated Centre. Ext.P6 is the Certificate of
Disability secured by the petitioner from the Designated Centre. In
Ext.P6, it is certified that the petitioner is suffering from Spastic
Cerebral Palsy Triplegia and her disability is 63.3%. It was,
however, endorsed in Ext.P6 that since the right upper limb of the
petitioner is involved in her disability, she is not suitable for
admission to Medical Courses. In the light of the said endorsement
in Ext.P6 Certificate of Disability, the petitioner was denied
admission to the course. The case set out by the petitioner in the
writ petition is that since she is eligible for admission to MBBS
Course in the quota earmarked for 'Persons with Disability' as per
W.P.(C) No.27225 of 2020
..5..
the Regulations, she cannot be denied admission to the course
based on the endorsement of suitability made by the authority
designated for issuing the Certificate of Disability. The petitioner,
therefore, seeks orders quashing Ext.P6 Certificate of Disability, to
the extent it provides that the petitioner is not suitable for Medical
Courses. The petitioner also seeks a declaration that she is eligible
for admission to MBBS Course under the quota earmarked for
'Persons with Disability', as per the Regulations. She further seeks
directions to the respondents concerned to admit her to the MBBS
Course in the institution referred to in Ext.P5 allotment.
3. On 07.12.2020, this Court admitted the writ
petition and passed an interim order directing the concerned
respondent to admit the petitioner provisionally to the MBBS
Course, subject to further orders. The said interim order reads
thus:
"Admit.
2. Learned CGC, Sri.Jayasankar V Nair takes
notice for respondents 1 and 2. Learned Standing
Counsel, Sri.Titus Mani Vettom, takes notice for the 3 rd
respondent. Learned Government Pleader takes notice for
respondents 4, 7 and 8. Learned Standing Counsel,
Sri.Nirmal.S, takes notice for respondents 5 and 6.
3. By Ext.P6 certificate, the special medical
board while assessing the disability of the petitioner at
63.3%, opined that though the petitioner is eligible for
PwD quota, she is not suitable for medical and dental
W.P.(C) No.27225 of 2020
..6..
courses. Therefore, she is unable to join the 7 th
respondent College based on Ext.P5 allotment.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner
points out that the specified disability of the petitioner
is Cerebral Palsy (Triplegia). Under Appendix H-1
(Ext.P4) of the Graduate Medical Education Amendment
Regulation 2019, as against specified disability of
Cerebral Palsy, which comes under locomotor disability,
persons with disability upto 80% are eligible. Further
requirement for cerebral palsy is given against the 2
asterisks as "** Attention should be paid to
impairment of vision, hearing, cognitive function
etc. and corresponding recommendations be
looked at". According to Ms. Aruna, the learned counsel
for the petitioner, the Medical Board has assessed her
disability under GMFCS-II at 50%, MACS-II at 30% and
total disability is found as 63.3%. However, the further
opinion given by the Medical Board that she is not
suitable for medical and dental courses as upper limb
(right) is also involved, was unwarranted. According to
the learned counsel, when the Medical Board has found
that she is having only 63.3% i.e., below 80% disability,
further assessment should have been confined to the
impairment of vision, hearing, cognitive function, etc.
Further assessment as to her suitability with respect to
upper limb is not liable to be considered in tune with
Appendix H-1 read with provisions contained in Right of
Persons With Disabilities Act, 2016, or under Ext P8
notification issued by the Government of India.
5. Heard both sides.
Though the learned counsel for all the respondents
vehemently opposed, the contention of the petitioner
pointing out that the assessment made by an expert body
W.P.(C) No.27225 of 2020
..7..
is not liable to be interfered with, I find force in the
contention of Ms. Aruna. The last date for admission on
the basis of Ext.P5 allotment is 08.12.2020. Therefore,
there is no time left for getting the opinion of another
medical board.
Therefore, there shall be a direction to the 8 th
respondent to admit the petitioner provisionally and
subject to further orders.
Hand over to both sides."
It is seen that later on 22.12.2020, the matter was brought up by
the respondents pointing out that the admissions are to be closed
on 31.12.2020 and if it is found ultimately in the writ petition that
the petitioner is not eligible for admission against the quota
earmarked for 'Persons with Disability', one seat will remain vacant.
It appears that it was also pointed out by the respondents on
22.12.2020 that Triplegia which the petitioner is suffering from is
independent of Cerebral Palsy, and persons suffering from Triplegia
are eligible for admission in terms of Appendix H-1 only if both their
hands are intact with intact sensation, sufficient strength and range
of motion. This Court then passed the following interim order on
22.12.2020 :
"Read order dated 07/12/2020.
On 07/12/2020, this Court had passed an interim order
directing grant of provisional admission to the petitioner. In
the said interim order, this Court had taken note of the fact
that the last date for admission, on the basis of Ext.P5
W.P.(C) No.27225 of 2020
..8..
allotment in favour of the petitioner, was on 08/12/2020.
The interim order was passed on 07/12/2020. The writ
petition has now been brought up by the respondents
pointing out that, the admissions are to close on 31/12/2020
and that if ultimately the petitioner is found to be ineligible,
then one seat will fall vacant which cannot be allotted to
any other candidate.
2. The question posed is whether the disability of
the petitioner, as mentioned in Ext.P6 certificate of
disability, namely "Spastic Cerebral Palsy Triplegia" (Both
Lower limbs and Right Upper limbs), is one and the same
disability or whether, in the case of the petitioner, Triplegia
is independent of Cerebral Palsy. If it is found that the
petitioner has disability of Triplegia, independent of Cerebral
Palsy, she may not be eligible for admission. From Ext.P4
regulation, it appears that Triplegia, if independent of
Cerebral Palsy, would fall within clause (f) in the column
specified 'disability' and she may not be eligible for
admission.
3. Be that as it may, I do not propose to go into
the said question at this stage. The learned Single Judge, in
the interim order dated 07/12/2020, has taken note of the
fact that, since the last date for admission on the basis of
Ext.P5 allotment was 08/12/2020, and that the writ petition
had come up on 07/12/2020, there was no time left for
getting another opinion of the Medical Board. The Medical
Board at Thiruvananthapuram being the designated Medical
Board and Ext.P6 certificate of disability having been issued
by that Board, I consider it proper that the petitioner
appears before the same Board for a certification as to
whether, in the case of the petitioner, the disability of
Triplegia is independent of cerebral palsy noted therein or is
it one that has occurred as a consequence of cerebral palsy.
The petitioner shall appear before the Medical Board either
on 28/12/2020 or 29/12/2020 between 11:00 am and 3:00
W.P.(C) No.27225 of 2020
..9..
pm, at her convenience.
The Special Government Pleader shall give necessary
instructions to the Board to make themselves available on
those days, at the time as mentioned, for examination. The
Medical Board shall issue a certificate in the form as
prescribed. The Certificate shall be issued on the very same
day of assessment."
Pursuant to the said interim order, the petitioner was subjected to
medical examination again by the Designated Centre.
4. When the matter was taken up for final hearing
on 13.1.2021, the learned Government Pleader has made available
to the Court the Certificate of Disability issued by the Designated
Centre pursuant to the interim order dated 22.12.2020. The said
Certificate of Disability shall form part of the records in this case as
Ext.R7(a). It is certified by the Designated Centre in the certificate
that Triplegia is most likely attributable to Spastic Cerebral Palsy
which the petitioner is suffering from.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
learned Government Pleader, the learned Central Government
Counsel as also the learned Standing Counsel for the National
Medical Commission.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner being a person suffering from benchmark
disability and not disqualified in terms of Appendix H-1 to the
Regulations, she is eligible for admission to the course. It was also
W.P.(C) No.27225 of 2020
..10..
the submission of the learned counsel that the Centre designated
to issue Certificate of Disability cannot decide the eligibility of a
candidate, and the decision taken by the competent authority to
deny admission to the petitioner to the course solely based on the
opinion of the Designated Centre is illegal and arbitrary.
7. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the
third respondent pointed out that the petitioner is not only suffering
from Spastic Cerebral Palsy, but also from Triplegia, and Triplegia
falls under residuary category 'others' made mention of under the
general category 'Locomotor Disability' in Appendix H-1; that in
terms of Appendix H-1, candidates suffering from disabilities on
account of the causes and ailments mentioned in residuary
category 'others' are eligible to claim admission to medical course
only if both their hands are intact, with intact sensations, sufficient
strength and range of motion. According to the learned Standing
Counsel, insofar as it is specifically mentioned in Ext.P6 Certificate
of Disability that the right upper limb of the petitioner is involved in
her disability, she does not satisfy the requirements of Appendix
H-1. The fact that the petitioner is suffering from Triplegia has been
specifically added in Ext.P6 Certificate of Disability along with the
specified disability 'Cerebral Palsy', submits the learned Standing
Counsel. It was also contended by the learned Standing Counsel
that the scheme of Appendix H-1 is that candidates whose hands
W.P.(C) No.27225 of 2020
..11..
are intact, with intact sensations, sufficient strength and range of
motion alone shall be admitted to the course. The learned Standing
Counsel has also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Vidhi
Himmat Katariya and Others v. State of Gujarat ad Others,
(2019) 10 SCC 20, in support of his contentions.
8. The learned Government Pleader as also the
learned Central Government Counsel supported the arguments
raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent.
9. As noted, as per Clause 4(3) of the Regulations,
the seats earmarked for 'Persons with Disability' are to be filled up
by candidates with benchmark disabilities in terms of the Act based
on their rank in the Test, subject to the eligibility in terms of
Appendix H-1 to the Regulations. Again, as noted, in terms of the
Act, a candidate with benchmark disability is a candidate with not
less than forty per cent of a specified disability and the specified
disability is any one of the disabilities specified in the Schedule to
the Act. Cerebral Palsy is a specified disability. In terms of
Appendix H-1, candidates suffering from Cerebral Palsy with not
more than 80% disability are eligible for admission to MBBS Course.
Petitioner who is suffering from Cerebral Palsy is disabled only to
the extent of 63.3% in terms of the Certificate of Disability issued
by the Designated Centre. In other words, the petitioner is eligible
in terms of the Regulations to claim admission to the MBBS Course.
W.P.(C) No.27225 of 2020
..12..
10. I shall now examine the contentions put forward
by the third respondent. Before dealing with the contentions, it is
necessary to mention that the third respondent has not filed a
counter affidavit in this matter. Since the matter was brought up at
the instance of the third respondent, this Court specifically asked
the learned Standing Counsel as to whether the third respondent
intends to file any counter affidavit in the matter, and the stand
adopted by the Standing Counsel in this context is that the
materials on record are sufficient to decide the eligibility of the
petitioner. The matter was accordingly taken up for hearing.
11. As noted, the contention of the third
respondent is that the petitioner is not only suffering from
Spastic Cerebral Palsy, but also from Triplegia, and Triplegia
falls under residuary category 'others' made mention of under
the general category 'Locomotor Disability' in Appendix H-1;
that in terms of Appendix H-1, candidates suffering from
disabilities on account of causes mentioned in the residuary
category 'others' are eligible to claim admission to medical
courses only if both their hands are intact, with intact
sensations, sufficient strength and range of motion and that
insofar as it is mentioned in Ext.P6 that the right upper limb of
the petitioner is involved in her disability, she does not satisfy
W.P.(C) No.27225 of 2020
..13..
the requirements in Appendix H-1. In order to consider the
said contention of the third respondent, it is necessary to refer
to the relevant portion of Appendix H-1 of the Regulations
which is reproduced hereunder:
Disability Range
Disability Type
S. Type of Specified Disability Eligible Eligible for Medical Not Eligible
No. Disabilities for Course, Eligible for for Medical
Medical PwD Quota Course
Course,
Not
Eligible
for PwD
Quota
1. A. a. Leprosy cured Less than 40-80% disability More than
Locomotor person* 40% Persons with more 80%
Disability, b. Cerebral Palsy** disability than 80% disability
including may also be allowed
Specified c. Dwarfism on case to case
Disabilities basis and their
(a to f). d. Muscular functional
Dystrophy competency will be
e. Acid attack determined with the
victims aid of assistive
f. Others*** such devices, if it is being
Physical Disability
as Amputation, used, to see if it is
Poliomyelitis etc. brought below 80%
and whether they
possess sufficient
motor ability as
required to pursue
and complete the
course satisfactorily.
* Attention should be paid to loss of sensations in fingers and hands,
amputation, as well as involvement of eyes and corresponding
recommendations be looked at.
** Attention should be paid to impairment of vision, hearing, cognitive
function etc. and corresponding recommendations be looked at.
*** Both hands intact, with intact sensation, sufficient strength and
range of motion are essential to be considered eligible for medical
course.
It is evident from the Certificate of Disability furnished by the
Designated Centre pursuant to the interim order passed by this
W.P.(C) No.27225 of 2020
..14..
Court on 22.12.2020 that Triplegia referred to in Ext.P6 Certificate
of Disability is only the medical condition associated with the
disability of the petitioner, viz, Spastic Cerebral Palsy. In other
words, the said medical condition of the petitioner cannot be
regarded as an independent disability. True, in the column intended
for specifying the disability in Ext.P6 Certificate of Disability, the
Designated Centre has added Triplegia also. But, merely for the
reason that the Designated Centre has mentioned in the Certificate
of Disability the medical condition of the petitioner also, it cannot
be construed as an independent disability, when the materials on
record establish that it is not an independent disability, but only
the medical condition of the petitioner.
12. True, in the context of locomotor disabilities like
amputation, poliomyelitis etc., Appendix H-1 provides that both
hands of the candidate shall be intact with intact sensation,
sufficient strength and range of motion. But, as far as Cerebral
Palsy is concerned, the requirement is only that the disability of the
candidate shall not be more than 80% and that the candidate shall
not be suffering from impairment of vision, hearing, cognitive
function etc. The aforesaid prescriptions cannot be presumed to be
mutually destructive. If one makes an attempt to reconcile the
prescriptions, it can be seen that a candidate who does not suffer
from the disqualifications in Appendix H-1 is presumed to be
W.P.(C) No.27225 of 2020
..15..
suitable for medical education. I take this view having regard to
Guidelines issued by the Central Government, in exercise of the
power conferred under Section 56 of the Act for the purpose of
assessing the extent of specified disability in a person included in
the Act, in terms of which Ext.P6 Certificate of Disability has been
issued to the petitioner. The relevant portion in the said Guidelines
is part of the records as Ext.P8. The said Guidelines provided for a
system called Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS)
for evaluating the general disability and a system called Manual
Ability Classification System (MACS) to assess the disability of the
persons affected by Cerebral Palsy. Ext.P6 Certificate indicates that
the disability of the petitioner applying the GMFCS was found to be
50%. In other words, in terms of the Guidelines referred to above,
the petitioner is a person who can climb stairs with railing, though
she has only minimum ability to run or jump and difficulty with
uneven surfaces or inclines. Similarly, Ext.P6 Certificate indicates
that the disability of the petitioner applying MACS was found to be
30%. In other words, in terms of the Guidelines, the petitioner is a
person who is able to handle most objects with somewhat reduced
quality and/or speed of achievement. In other words, according to
me, it cannot be said that the petitioner suffers from any of the
disqualifications mentioned in Appendix H-1 for persons suffering
from Locomotor Disability like Amputation, Poliomyelitis etc. The
W.P.(C) No.27225 of 2020
..16..
decision of the Apex Court in Vidhi has no application to the facts
of the present case, for the same relates to persons admittedly
suffering from the disability falling under the residuary clause
"others" under the general Locomotor Disability Category in
Appendix H-1 and not persons suffering from Cerebral Palsy as in
the case on hand for which a different criteria for assessment of
the disability and suitability has been provided for. Needless to say,
there is absolutely no merit in the contentions advanced by the
learned counsel for the third respondent.
13. Be that as it may, it is necessary to mention in
the context of this case that like any other citizen, persons with
disability have also the right to get not only the basic education
but also higher education. Every person shall be presumed to be
capable of learning, and denial of opportunity to pursue a course
which one seeks to undertake on the ground of disability would
amount to denial of opportunity to learn, and would be
discriminatory. As far as persons with disability are concerned, if
only they are given education, they will be able to lead an
independent, economically self sufficient, productive and fully
participatory life. It is with the aforesaid objective that the Act was
brought into force, and having regard to the provisions of the Act, it
is the obligation of the State to do all that is necessary to empower
persons with disability to foster their participation in all aspects of
W.P.(C) No.27225 of 2020
..17..
life. In the light of the aforesaid objective, in matters relating to
admission to educational institutions, especially against the quota
earmarked for persons with disability, what is to be considered is as
to whether the candidates are in a position to perform the essential
functions of the course and if they are able to perform the essential
functions of the course, admission shall not be denied to them on
the ground of their disability. I may add in this context that if the
curriculum of a particular course is not disabled friendly, it is the
obligation of the authorities concerned to make the curriculum
disabled friendly to the extent possible and to provide to the
persons with disability necessary assistance having regard to the
technological advancements in the field. In other words, the
ultimate objective shall be that if a disabled person desires to
pursue his studies in a particular field, and if he is capable and
competent to do so, his disability shall not stand in the way of the
said learning process.
14. Reverting to the facts again, the petitioner is a
person who can climb stairs with railing, though she has only
minimum ability to run or jump and she has difficulty in moving
with uneven surfaces. She is also a person who is able to handle
most objects with somewhat reduced quality and/or speed of
achievement. Denying admission to such a person in medical
courses would be per se arbitrary. On a specific query from the
W.P.(C) No.27225 of 2020
..18..
court as to the basis for insisting that the hands of the candidates
shall be intact with intact sensations, sufficient strength and range
of motion, the answer given by the Standing Counsel for the third
respondent was that the same is necessary for a person to perform
the duties of a doctor. True, the doctors need to physically examine
the patients, but all candidates pursuing medical courses are not
becoming practising doctors. There are several other avenues also
for candidates who are pursuing medical courses such as teaching,
research etc. other than practising in surgical and clinical faculties
which persons who do not have even the upper limbs are
successfully doing. That apart, it cannot be said that a person who
is not able to physically examine a patient cannot be a doctor, for
having regard to the technological advancements achieved in the
field of medicine especially during the last couple of decades, there
would be umpteen replacements for physical examination in the
years to come.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the interim
order passed by this Court dated 07.12.2020 directing the eighth
respondent to admit the petitioner to the MBBS Course is made
absolute.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR
JUDGE
ds 16.01.2021
W.P.(C) No.27225 of 2020
..19..
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION CARD ISSUED
TO THE PETITIONER BY THE NATIONAL
ELIGIBILITY TEST (UG) BY THE MINISTRY
OF EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF
DISABILITY ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY
THE STANDING DISABILITY ASSESSMENT
BOARD ON 10.11.2009.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
NEET PROSPECTUS FOR THE YEAR 2020.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION REGULATIONS
(AMENDMENT) 2019.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL ALLOTMENT
LETTER NO.2 WITH RESPECT TO ALLOTMENT
DATED 26.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE
DIRECTOR OF GENERAL OF HEALTH
SERVICES, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND
FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DISABILITY
CERTIFICATE NO.G23097/19/GMCH DATED
04.12.2020.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
REGULATION OF GRADUATE MEDICAL
EDUCATION (AMENDMENT) RULE 2019 DATED
04.02.2019 PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF
INDIA ON 5.2.2019.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGED OF THE
GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 05.01.2018
PUBLISHING THE GUIDELINES FOR
ASSESSING SPECIFIED DISABILITY.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R7A TRUE COPY OF THE DISABILITY CERTIFICATE
ISSUED BY THE DESIGNATED CENTRE
