Madras High Court
Dr.S.Abdulkhader vs Union Of India Rep. By on 27 January, 2025
W.P.No.39514 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 08.01.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 27.01.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
W.P.No.39514 of 2024
and
W.M.P.Nos.42788 & 42789 of 2024
Dr.S.Abdulkhader ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Union of India rep. by
The Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
New Delhi.
2.The National Medical Commission,
Pocket 14, Sector 8, Dwaraka Phase-1
New Delhi 110077
3.The Director General of Health Service,
Medical Counselling Committee,
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
New Delhi – 110108
4.The Secretary To Government,
Health & Family Welfare Dept.,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Chennai - 600009
5.The Director Of Medical Education,
Kilpauk,
Chennai 600010.
Page Nos.1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.39514 of 2024
6.The Selection Committee,
Directorate of Medical Education,
Kilpauk,
Chennai – 600010.
7.Dr. K. Swetha
8.Dr. G.Muthukumar
9.Dr. L. Sai Venkatesan ... Respondents
Prayer:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for
the records pertaining to the II Round PwD Counselling Schedule for
PG Degree/Diploma Courses in Tamil Nadu Government Medical
Colleges, 2024-25 Session, held online from 14.12.2024 to 16.12.2024
and the Selection List dated 16.12.2024, published in the official
website of the sixth respondent in www.tnmedicalselection.net and
quash the same and further direct the sixth respondent to conduct a
fresh second round of counselling for Persons with Disabilities (PwD)
candidates without applying rule of reservation and to ensure filling up
of the entire 60 vacancies reserved for Persons with Disabilities (PwD)
from the eligible PwD candidates irrespective of non-service or in-
service candidates.
For the Petitioner :Mr.E. Ravichandran
For the Respondent-1 :Mr.R. Subramaniyan (ACGSC)
For the Respondent-4 & 5 : Mr.E. Sundaram, GA
For the Respondent-6 :Mrs. M.Sneha (Standing
Counsel)
Page Nos.2/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.39514 of 2024
ORDER
Challenging the Selection List dated 16.12.2024, published in the
official website of the sixth respondent in www.tnmedicalselection.net
in respect of the II Round PwD Counselling Scheduled for PG
Degree/Diploma Courses in Tamil Nadu Government Medical Colleges,
2024-25 Session, held online from 14.12.2024 to 16.12.2024, the
petitioner herein has come forward with the present petition. Further,
he seeks a direction to the sixth respondent to conduct a fresh second
round of counselling for Persons with Disabilities (PwD) candidates,
without applying rule of reservation and to ensure filling up of the
entire 60 vacancies reserved for Persons with Disabilities (PwD) from
the eligible PwD candidates irrespective of non-service or in-service
candidates.
2. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner as
well as for the respondents.
3. The case in the nutshell is as follows:
3.1. The petitioner herein challenges the second-round
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
counselling process for NEET PG 2024 admissions under the Persons
with Disabilities (PwD) quota in Tamil Nadu Government Medical
Colleges. The counselling conducted by the sixth respondent-Selection
Committee, Directorate of Medical Education, Tamil Nadu was held
online from 14.12.2024 to 16.12.2024 and the selection list was
published on 16.12.2024. The petitioner, an eligible candidate under
the PwD quota, contended that the application of communal
reservation rules to this quota is in violation of Section 32 of the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 [in short referred to as “PwD
Act”], as the provision mandates a minimum of 5% reservation for
PwD candidates without any discrimination based on caste, community
or other factors, treating them as a special category.
3.2. He further highlighted procedural irregularities in the
second-round counselling. It is alleged that unfilled in-service seats
from the first round were prematurely converted into general category
seats instead of being carried forward for allocation to eligible non-
service PwD candidates in subsequent rounds. This action, according
to the petitioner, undermined the intent of the PwD reservation policy,
as many eligible candidates were denied an opportunity to compete for
these seats. Another major irregularity cited is the failure to disclose
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
“virtual vacancies”, which should have been created when candidates
upgraded their seats from the first round to the second round of
counselling. The petitioner urged that these vacant seats were not
properly made available for selection by PwD candidates, further
reducing their chances of securing a seat. The petitioner also pointed
out that only a small fraction of the seats reserved for PwD candidates
were filled, with most seats left unallocated due to the communal
reservation rules and procedural lapses. As a result of these alleged
violations and irregularities, the petitioner seeks the annulment of the
second-round counselling results and to direct the sixth respondent to
conduct a fresh counselling round exclusively for PwD candidates. This
fresh round should be free from communal reservation rules and
should ensure that all reserved seats are appropriately filled in
accordance with the statutory provisions and the principles of fairness
and equity.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
second round of counselling process for the PwD quota violated
statutory and judicial mandates, depriving eligible candidates of fair
opportunities. He argued that Section 32 of the PwD Act, explicitly
provides for a minimum of 5% reservation for PwD candidates without
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
any discrimination based on caste, community or other factors. He
asserted that the sixth respondent's decision to apply communal
reservation rules within this quota contradicts the law, as no provision
in the Act or the admission prospectus mentions communal sub-
categorization under the PwD reservation.
5. In support of his contentions, he drew the attention of this
Court to the judicial precedents, including the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Mahesh Gupta & Ors. Vs. Yashwant Kumar
Ahirwar & Ors. reported in 2007 (8) SCC 621, wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that horizontal reservations, such as those for
PwD, must be treated as distinct and cannot be subjected to vertical
communal categorizations. The judgment emphasized that disabled
individuals form a special class and should not be further divided
based on caste, creed or religion. He also cited Union of India &
Anr. Vs. National Federation of Blind & Ors. reported in 2013
(10) SCC 772, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that
50% ceiling on reservations under Article 16(4) applies only to vertical
reservations and does not restrict horizontal reservations like those for
PwD under Article 16(1). This judgment reinforces the petitioner's
claim that communal reservation rules cannot override the statutory
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
PwD quota. Similarly, in Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. Union of
India & Ors. reported in 2016 (13) SCC 153, the Court ruled that
PwD reservations are based solely on the benchmark disability criteria,
not on caste or community classifications. He further contended that
the application of communal reservation within the PwD quota is a
clear contravention of these binding precedents.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also highlighted
procedural lapses including the premature conversion of unfilled in-
service seats into the general category before completing PwD
counselling rounds. He asserted that unfilled seats meant for in-service
candidates should have been allocated to non-service PwD candidates
before being converted, as per the spirit of Section 32 of the PwD Act.
Additionally, he pointed out that the failure to disclose “virtual
vacancies” created by seat upgrades from the first to the second round
of counselling is in violation to Clause 26 of the prospectus, depriving
eligible candidates of a fair chance to compete for these seats. This
failure is particularly egregious as the petitioner was denied access to
seats that should have been available under the PwD quota.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. While concluding his arguments, the learned counsel pointed
out that out of 60 seats reserved for PwD candidates, only nine were
filled due to these irregularities, leaving the majority of seats
unallocated and contended that this defeats the purpose of the
statutory PwD reservation and reduces it to a mere formality. Citing
the judgment in Siddaraju Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. [2020
(19) SCC 572], which mandates strict compliance with the statutory
provisions for PwD reservations, the petitioner argued that the sixth
respondent's actions undermine the rights and opportunities
guaranteed to PwD candidates. Accordingly, he seeks the annulment of
the second-round counselling results and a directive to conduct a fresh
counselling without applying communal reservation rules, ensuring
compliance with the law and judicial precedents.
8. Per contra, the learned counsels of the respondents put forth
the following arguments to support their stand:
8.1. The respondents, particularly, the sixth respondent
(Selection Committee, Directorate of Medical Education, Tamil Nadu),
argued that the second-round counselling for NEET PG 2024
admissions under the PwD quota was conducted in compliance with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
applicable rules and regulations. They stated that while Section 32 of
the PwD Act, mandates a 5% reservation for PwD candidates, the
reservation must be implemented along with the communal
reservation policy mandated by Tamil Nadu's 69% reservation rule.
This policy ensures equitable distribution of seats across Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and other communities
and the respondents asserted that this approach does not conflict with
the PwD reservation under the Act.
8.2. The learned counsel for the sixth respondent clarified that
the first round of counselling was conducted without applying
communal reservations to allow PwD candidates to participate solely
on the basis of their merit and preferences. However, for subsequent
rounds, the communal reservation policy was applied to ensure that
the State's overall reservation framework was adhered to. They
argued that this adjustment was necessary to balance the competing
mandates of State reservation policies and PwD reservations, as
outlined in the admission prospectus.
8.3. In response to the petitioner's allegation regarding the
conversion of unfilled in-service seats to general category seats, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondents contended that this was done to prevent seats from going
unutilized and it was stated that the unfilled in-service seats were
reallocated based on the communal reservation framework ensuring
optimal utilization of seats and adherence to State policies. He also
denied the allegation of procedural lapses in disclosing virtual
vacancies created by seat upgrades, asserting that all vacancies were
notified to eligible candidates during the second round of counselling.
8.4. In furtherance, he also argued that the petitioner's inability
to secure a seat was due to his low rank and percentile score, which
placed him at the bottom of the PwD merit list. In the first round, his
preferred specialities were filled by higher-ranked candidates and in
the second round, the lack of vacancies in his category under the
communal reservation policy further limited his chances. The
respondents asserted that the petitioner's demand to annul the
second-round results and conduct fresh counselling without communal
reservations is untenable, as the process was conducted lawfully and
in accordance with State policy and admission guidelines. Hence, the
learned counsel for the respondents seeks dismissal of the Writ
Petition as the same lacks merit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. Considered the rival submissions made by the respective
learned counsels and also perused the materials available on record.
10. This Court finds that the application of communal reservation
within the PwD quota is not contrary to the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016. In K. Duraisamy v. State of Tamil Nadu
[2001 (2) SCC 538], the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:
i)The Government possesses the right and authority to decide
from what sources the admissions in educational institutions or to
particular disciplines and courses therein, have to be made and that
too in what proportion.
ii)That such allocation of seats in the form of fixation of quota is
not to be equated with the usual form of communal reservation and
therefore, the constitutional and legal considerations relevant to
communal reservations are out of place while deciding the case based
on such allocation of seats.
iii)That such exclusive allocation and stipulation of a definite
quota or number of seats between in-service and non-service or
private candidates provided two separate channels of entry and a
candidate belonging to one exclusive quota cannot claim to steal a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
march into another exclusive quota by advancing a claim based on
merit. Inter-se merit of the candidates in each quota shall be
determined based on the merit performance of the candidates
belonging to that quota.
iv)That the mere use of the word “reservation” per se is not
decisive of the nature of allocation. Whether it is a reservation or an
allocation of seats for the purpose of providing two separate and
exclusive sources of entry would depend on the purpose and object
with which the expression has been used and that would be
determinative of the meaning, content and purport of the expression.
Where the scheme envisages not a mere reservation but is one for
classification of the sources from which admission is to be accorded,
fixation of respective quota for such classified groups does not attract
applicability of considerations relevant to reservation simpliciter. It is
evident from the above-mentioned case that the Government has the
authority to determine the sources and proportions for admissions and
that such allocations, including communal reservations within specific
quotas, do not violate constitutional or legal principles. The integration
of communal reservation into the PwD quota reflects the State's policy
objective to ensure equitable representation across social groups and
does not dilute the intent of the PwD reservation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11. Further, the petitioner's claim regarding procedural
irregularities is not substantiated. The sixth respondent has shown that
the unfilled in-service seats were converted into general category
seats in accordance with established procedures to optimize seat
utilization. The alleged non-disclosure of virtual vacancies was
adequately addressed, as the respondents have demonstrated that all
vacancies were notified to eligible candidates. The petitioner's
exclusion from the second round of counselling was due to his rank
and the limited availability of seats in his category and not due to any
illegality in the process.
12. This Court is of the considered opinion that the counselling
process conducted by the sixth respondent was lawful, transparent and
in compliance with statutory provisions and State policies. The
petitioner's grievances, while arising from the competitive nature of
admissions, do not demonstrate any procedural or legal violation
warranting interference by this Court. The reliance on K. Duraisamy's
Case further supports the State's Authority to implement communal
reservation within the PwD quota.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13. In view of the elaborate discussions of the matter and in the
light of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as stated supra
and the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as sought for by him.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition(s) is/are closed, if any. There shall
be no orders as to costs.
27.01.2025
Index: Yes/No
Order: Speaking/Non-Speaking
NCC : Yes/No
DP
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.Union of India rep. by
The Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
New Delhi.
2.The National Medical Commission,
Pocket 14, Sector 8, Dwaraka Phase-1
New Delhi 110077
3.The Director General of Health Service,
Medical Counselling Committee,
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
New Delhi – 110108
4.The Secretary To Government,
Health & Family Welfare Dept.,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Chennai - 600009
5.The Director Of Medical Education,
Kilpauk,
Chennai 600010.
6.The Selection Committee,
Directorate of Medical Education,
Kilpauk,
Chennai – 600010.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
DP
ORDER MADE IN
and
W.M.P.Nos.42788 & 42789 of 2024
27.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
