Vipin Kumar vs Neet Ug Medical And Dental ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 973 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 108/2022

Vipin Kumar S/o Shri Rajesh Kumar, Aged About 21 Years, R/o By Pass Road, Near Dhindhwaa Circle, Pilani, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. Neet Ug Medical And Dental Admission/counseling Board-

2021, Through Its Chairman, Government Dental College (Ruhs College Of Dental Sciences), Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Department Of Medical Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Principal And Controller, Sawai Man Singh Hospital, Jaipur.

4. The Chairman, National Medical Commission, Dada Dev Mandir Road, Sector 8, Dwarka, New Delhi 110077.

5. The Registrar, Medical Council Of India, Sector 8, Pocket 14 Phase-I, Dwarka, New Delhi 110077.

6. The Senior Director (Exam), Neet (Ug-2021), National Testing Agency, C-20 1A/8, Sector 62, Iitk Outreach Centre, Noida 201309.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Firoda for Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG] Mr. Anil Kumar Khatri], through VC

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

20/01/2022

1. The petitioner has challenged the certificate dated

13.12.2021, issued by the Disability Assessment Board, wherein

the petitioner has been held ineligible on account of having

(2 of 5) [CW-108/2022]

disability less than 40% which makes a candidate entitled to claim

reservation under Person with Disability (in short, 'PwD') Category.

2. The facts relevant for the present purposes are that the

petitioner, being desirous of pursuing medical course, applied in

the PwD Category on the basis of a certificate of disability showing

41% locomotor disability.

3. The petitioner's result was declared and his name was

reflected in the list of PwD Category candidates called for

counselling.

4. The petitioner appeared before the Disability Assessment

Board, SMS Hospital, Jaipur which declared the petitioner to be

unfit to pursue medical course vide its report dated 13.12.2021.

5. The matter came up before this Court on 12.01.2022. It was

submitted that as per the Appendix H-1 of notification dated

13.05.2019, the Disability Assessment Board was required to give

percentage wise disability. Hence, this Court ordered for re-

assessment of the petitioner's disability and the petitioner was

directed to appear before the Disability Assessment Board on

17.01.2022.

6. Pursuant to the order aforesaid, the petitioner appeared

before the Disability Assessment Board, who after examining the

petitioner, prepared a report dated 18.01.2022 showing 28%

disability, which is less than the minimum benchmark disability,

rendering the petitioner ineligible to pursue medical studies. A

copy of the report has been placed before this Court, which is

taken on record.

7. Mr. Firoda, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that the

Disability Assessment Boards have seriously erred in holding the

petitioner ineligible to claim reservation.

(3 of 5) [CW-108/2022]

8. It is contended that the petitioner is having a valid disability

certificate issued by the competent authority and the same is

binding.

9. It is argued that the petitioner is having 41% disability and

is, therefore, entitled to be considered under PwD Category. And

that the Disability Assessment Board was required to examine the

functional capacity of the petitioner that he can or cannot pursue

medical course and not the percentage of disability.

10. Mr. Manish Vyas, learned AAG, appearing for the respondent

- State, argued that as per Clause 5.3.3, the petitioner is required

to subject himself before the Disability Assessment Board and the

assessment made by the Disability Assessment Board as per the

relevant rules and guidelines/notification in this regard, is required

to be considered final.

11 It is submitted that petitioner has been subjected to medical

assessment by the board twice; and both the times, the petitioner

was found to be ineligible and, therefore, this Court may not

interfere in the present case.

12. Heard.

13. Admittedly, the petitioner has been subjected to assessment

of his disability by the medical board on two occasions and, both

the times, he has been found ineligible for claiming reservation

under PwD Category.

14. That apart, clause 5.3.3 and 5.3.4 of the information booklet

clearly provides that a candidate applying under PwD Category will

be examined by the Disability Assessment Board and it will

examine the petitioner's disability as per the relevant law and

notification. Since the petitioner's disability has been found to be

less than 40%, his very right of being considered under PwD

(4 of 5) [CW-108/2022]

Category is under serious cloud. Hence, question of testing

petitioner's functional capacity does not arise at all.

15. In the judgment dated 09.11.2017 in the case of Hanuman

Lal Jat Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs & Ors. [D.B. Civil

Special Appeal Writ No.1259/2017], Division Bench of this Court

has held that the Court cannot sit over the opinion given by the

medical boards. The relevant part of the judgment reads thus:-

"The Ld. Single Judge taking note of report of the Review Medical Board was not inclined to interfere in its equitable jurisdiction u/Art.26 of the Constitution and after we have heard counsel for the appellant we too are of the view that this Court does not hold any expertise on the subject and report of the medical Board has to be given its due precedence and that apart it is not case of the appellant that the Medical Board or the Review Medical Board was not constituted as per the mandate/requirement of law or either Member of the Board was biased, in absence whereof what being observed by the Medical Board in its report has to be given its due credence/precedence and we find no reason to interfere unless there is contemporary evidence on record to the contrary and the appellant placed reliance on the certificate issued by a doctor of JLN Hospital, Ajmer who even does not know the kind of job which a constable has to discharge in Border Security Force and his opinion regarding medical fitness will not supersede the view which the Medical Board or the Review Medical Board has expressed & considered by the Ld. Single Judge under its order impugned."

16. This Court is of the considered view that the two reports

given by competent Medical Boards constituted by the reputed

institution cannot be given a go-bye. In absence of any malafides

alleged against the medical board, this Court does not find any

reason to interfere in the present writ petition and pronounce

upon the reports given by the experts of the field, when this Court

has hardly any knowledge much less proficiency.

17. The writ petition, therefore, fails.

(5 of 5) [CW-108/2022]

17. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 9-skm/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)