Rajasthan High Court
Anmol Son Of Subhash Chander vs Union Of India on 20 December, 2023
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Praveer Bhatnagar
[2023:RJ-JP:39699-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 683/2023
in
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13124/2023
Anmol Son Of Subhash Chander, Aged About 19 Years, Present
Address Gad Flats 111/118, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan) -
302015.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Secretary, Department Of Health
And Family Welfare, Ministry Of Health And Family
Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi - 110011.
2. Principal Secretary To Government, Medical Education
Department, Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan) -
302005.
3. Office Of Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) Through
Director General, Directorate General Of Health Services
(DGHS), Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare,
Government Of India, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-
110108.
4. The Deputy Director General (ME), Directorate General Of
Health Services, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110108.
5. National Medical Commission (NMC), Through Its
Chairman, Pocket-14, Sector-8, Dwarka Phase- 1, New
Delhi - 110077.
6. Chairperson, National Testing Agency (NTA), First Floor,
NSIC-MDBP Building, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi-
110020.
7. NEET UG Medical And Dental Admission/counselling
Board-2023, RUHS College Of Dental Sciences
(Government Dental College) Through Its Chairman,
Subhash Nagar, Behind T.b. Hospital, Jaipur (Rajasthan) -
302016.
8. Lady Hardinge Medical College And Associated Hospitals
(LHMC), Through Its Director, New Delhi - 110001.
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 686/2023
in
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13148/2023
Aanchal Sharma D/o Shri Durga Prasad Sharma, Aged About 18
Years, Resident Of Plot No. 8A, Sita Nagar-II, Near Rajni Vihar,
(Downloaded on 21/12/2023 at 10:12:25 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:39699-DB] (2 of 50) [SAW-683/2023]
Hirapura, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Medical
Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. NEET-UG (Medical/dental) Admission/counseling Board-
2023, Through Its Chairman, Office Of NEET-UG
(Medical/dental) Admission/counseling Board, RUHS
College Of Dental Sciences, Government Dental College,
Subhash Nagar, Behind T.b. Hospital, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
3. Medical Counseling Committee, Through Its Chairman,
Pocket No. 14, Sector-8, Dwarka Phase-I, New Delhi-
110077.
4. Atal Bihari Vajpai Institute Of Medical Sciences And Ram
Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi, Baba Kharagsingh
Marg, Near Gurudwara Bangla Sahib, Connaught Place,
New Delhi.
5. SMS Medical College And Hospital Jaipur, Through Its
Convener Medical Board, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Tribhuvan Narayan Singh
Mr. Saransh Saini with
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Manjeet Kaur
Mr. Angad Mirdha
Mr. Vishvas Saini for
Mr. MS Raghav
Mr. Harshal Tholia for
Mr. Vibhuti Bhushan Sharma, AAG
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR
Judgment
Reportable
Pronounced on: 20.12.2023
By the Court: (Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava)
[2023:RJ-JP:39699-DB] (3 of 50) [SAW-683/2023]
The relevant factual matrix of the case are stated infra:-
2. Appellant-Anmol in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 683/2023 and
appellant-Aanchal Sharma in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 686/2023,
who belong to disabled category, appeared in the NEET (UG)-2023
examination for admission to undergraduate medical course. The
certificate of disability issued by the designated certification board
in respect of the aforesaid two appellants declared both of them
ineligible for undertaking the undergraduate medical course.
3. Aggrieved by such declaration of ineligibility, both the
appellants filed writ petitions, which were dismissed by the
learned Single Judge.
4. The aforesaid two appeals were heard analogously as both
are based on almost similar facts involving issues with regard to
eligibility under the same set of Rules and Guidelines in the matter
of admission to undergraduate medical course. The two appeals
are, therefore, being decided by this common order.
5. Appellant-Anmol belongs to OBC (NCL) category and is also a
person with disability (PwD). Earlier a disability certificate (Form-
II) was issued in his favour the under the Rights of Persons with
Disability Act, 2016 read with the Rights of Persons with Disability
Rules, 2017, issued by the State of Rajasthan on 21.12.2017
mentioning locomotor disability with 75% permanent physical
impairment in relation to his both lower limbs. Subsequently,
another certificate was issued in his favour by the competent
[2023:RJ-JP:39699-DB] (4 of 50) [SAW-683/2023]
authority which again declared Anmol as a person having
locomotor disability and speech & language disability, having
overall permanent physical impairment of 58%.
6. Appellant-Aanchal Sharma belongs to General category
candidate and is a person with disability. The disability certificate
in her favour was issued in Form No.-IV issued by the competent
authority of the State on 19.12.2022 declaring that she is having
locomotor disability and diagnosed as "ERB's PALSY RIGHT UPPER
LIMB" DISABILITY 50%.
7. For the purpose of grant of admission to undergraduate
course in medical colleges in the country, applications were invited
from all candidates desirous of seeking admission to such course
by the National Testing Agency ('NTA' for short). Both, appellant-
Anmol and appellant-Aanchal Sharma applied for admission to
undergraduate medical course in the category of Persons with
Disability. National Eligibility Entrance Test (UG)-2023 was
conducted by the National Testing Agency on 07.05.2023,
wherein, all the candidates including the present two appellants
appeared.
8. Appellant-Anmol secured the rank 1329 in the category of
Persons with Disability and a scorecard to that effect was issued in
his favour. Appellant-Aanchal Sharma secured rank 201 in the
disability category.
9. Under the relevant scheme and guidelines for admission as
contained in the information bulletin of NEET (UG)-2023 issued by
[2023:RJ-JP:39699-DB] (5 of 50) [SAW-683/2023]
the National Testing Agency, 5% seats out of each of General,
General-EWS, OBC-NCL, SC and ST category were reserved for
persons with disability, being horizontal reservation. As per Clause
6 and 7 of the information bulletin (guidelines), it was provided
that the candidates with disability shall be considered for
admission in medical course against 5% of the total seats, in
accordance with the criteria prescribed under the Regulation of
Graduate Medical Education, 1997 as amended upto 13.05.2019,
as per Appendix-VI. It also issued advisory to candidates who
consider themselves eligible in the disability category, to ensure
their eligibility by getting themselves examined at any
Government Medical College/District Hospital/Government
Hospital. It provided that such Government Medical
College/District Hospital/Government Hospital shall issue a
disability certificate in reference to Chapter-VII of the Right of
Persons with Disability Rules, 2017. It was, however, clarified that
such disability certificate does not confer any right on any
candidate who seek admission in medical course in PwBD category
with persons with benchmark disability quota. It also clarified that
such certificate shall be to ascertain whether a candidate can
apply to National Testing Agency for appearing in the NEET (UG)
2023 under PwBD quota only.
10. Clause (c) further provided that thereafter the candidates,
upon selection under PwBD category, shall have to produce a
disability certificate issued by the Disability Assessment Board
[2023:RJ-JP:39699-DB] (6 of 50) [SAW-683/2023]
('DAB' for short), which shall have assessed the candidate in
reference to the criteria prescribed under the Regulations of
Graduate Medical Education, 1997 as amended up to 13.05.2019.
The candidates, therefore, were required to appear after
declaration of result, before any of the 16 designated disability
assessment board, so as to determine where they may register or
participate in the common online counseling toward admission to
medical courses. The list of 16 designated disability centers was
annexed as Appendix-VII with the information bulletin.
11. Clause (d) further provided that in case the candidates are
found to be ineligible by the designated Disability Assessment
Board, in reference to the criteria prescribed under the Guidelines
of Graduate Medical Education, 1997 as amended on 13.05.2019,
they may not register or participate in the common online
counseling and any online provisional allotment of the medical
college shall be entirely fraudulent on the part of the candidate. It
was clarified that the certificate issued by the authorized centers
designated for the purpose of DGHS, shall only be considered for
admission to medical course and no other certificate issued by any
other Government Medical College/District Hospital/Government
Hospital will be accepted.
12. Appellant-Anmol and appellant-Aanchal Sharma, both
appeared before two different designated Disability Assessment
Board to seek appropriate certification of their eligibility for the
[2023:RJ-JP:39699-DB] (7 of 50) [SAW-683/2023]
purpose of appearing in the counseling and, if allotted, for
admission to medical course under the graduate medical course.
13. While appellant-Anmol was examined by Disability
Assessment Board in the Lady Hardinge Medical College &
Associated Hospitals, New Delhi; appellant-Aanchal Sharma was
examined by Disability Assessment Board in Atal Bihari Vajpayee
Institute of Medical Sciences and Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital,
New Delhi.
14. The two appellants were examined by the Disability
Assessment Boards in two different designated centers. The
boards, after physical examination of both the appellants, issued
certificates specifying nature and extent of disability with the
declaration that they are ineligible to undertake the medical
course.
15. Aggrieved by such declaration of ineligibility, writ petitions
were filed. As the learned Single Judge did not interfere with the
assessment and declaration of ineligibility by the Disability
Assessment Board, the writ petitions of the respective petitioners,
Anmol and Aanchal Sharma, were dismissed giving rise to
aforesaid two appeals.
Appellants' submissions:
16. Submission on behalf of learned counsel for the appellant-
Anmol is that the certificate of disability and declaration of
ineligibility dated 21.07.2023 issued by the Disability Assessment
[2023:RJ-JP:39699-DB] (8 of 50) [SAW-683/2023]
Board is not in accordance with Appendix "H-1" of the Regulations
of Graduate Medical Education, 1997 as amended vide notification
dated 13.05.2019. The statutory guidelines dated 13.05.2019
requires the certificate of disability to be issued in accordance with
the Rights of Persons with Disability Rules, 2017 and the extent of
specified disability in a person is required to be assessed in
accordance with the "Guidelines for the purpose of assessing the
extent of specified disability in a person included under the Right
of Persons with Disability Act, 2016" notified in the official gazette
of India by Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment
[Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities
(Divyangjan)] on 04.01.2018. The reasons assigned to declare
appellant-Anmol ineligible is not based on examinations and
observations with reference to the relevant guidelines contained in
Appendix "H-1" of the guidelines dated 13.05.2019. It does not
contain any observation in medical opinion in respect of locomotor
disability in regard to both hands intact that intact sensation,
sufficient strength and range of motion, as these being essential
to be considered eligible for medical course as per Appendix "H-1"
of the guidelines. The conclusion, remark and reason of the
medical experts only mention the type of disability and specified
disability the person is having. No clear inference from such
conclusion can be drawn that medical experts have assessed and
examined the appellant in respect of locomotor disability in regard
to both hands intact with intact sensation, strength and range of
[2023:RJ-JP:39699-DB] (9 of 50) [SAW-683/2023]
motion. In the absence of proper examination and observations,
the certificate of disability and declaration of ineligibility cannot be
said to be issued as per the statutory scheme of notification dated
13.05.2019, in accordance with the Regulations of 1997 as
amended vide notification dated 13.05.2019.
The certificate of disability has not been issued in accordance
with Rights of Persons with Disability Rules, 2017. The medical
authority or any other notified competent authority, after
assessing the disability in terms of the relevant guidelines and
after specifying that the person examined is a person with
disability, is required to issue certificate of disability in Form-V, VI,
VIII, as the case may be. In case a person is found ineligible then
reasons are required to be conveyed in writing, in the manner
provided under the Form-VIII. The designated Disability
Assessment Board issued certificate of disability which is not in the
prescribed format as mentioned in the aforesaid relevant Rules,
which is amended as per guidelines dated 13.05.2019. The
certificate of disability and declaration of ineligibility by the
Disability Assessment Board being not in conformity with the
applicable statutory guidelines and not based on proper
examination so also not containing detailed reasons for arriving at
conclusion and at variance with what has been certified in the
disability certificate issued by the State authorities, the
respondents were obliged under the law to direct re-examination
of the appellant by the concerned Disability Assessment Board or
[2023:RJ-JP:39699-DB] (10 of 50) [SAW-683/2023]
any other designated Disability Assessment Board. The action of
the respondents in declaring appellant-Anmol ineligible is,
therefore, not only against the statutory guidelines but also
arbitrary, denying the petitioner, a person with disability, his
valuable right to pursue undergraduate medical course.
17. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the
appellant has relied upon several authorities.1
18. Learned counsel appearing for appellant-Aanchal Sharma
would submit that rejection of candidature of appellant-Aanchal
Sharma by declaring her medically unfit to undertake the
undergraduate medical course is illegal and arbitrary as the
disability of Aanchal Sharma is within the permissible range of 40-
80% as diagnosed and even in the certificate, the extent of
disability is specified as 60% only. As the disability is more than
the benchmark disability of 40%, denial of benefit of reservation is
unsustainable in law.
In the disability certificate dated 19.12.2022 issued in favour
of the appellant-Aanchal Sharma even prior to appearing in the
NNET (UG) examination, permanent physical impairment and
disability has been assessed to the extent of 50% and the
1. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 793/2022 Vibhushita Sharma Vs. Union of India & Ors. [Hon'ble SC]
2. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 669/2018 Purswani Ashutosh (Minor) Vs Union of India & Ors.
[Hon'ble SC]
3. Civil Appeal No. 10353/2018 Parmod Vs. Union of India & Ors. [Hon'ble SC]
4. D.B.C.W.P. No. 9483/2017 Raghav Agarwal Vs. The State of Raj. & Ors. [Hon'ble RHC,
Jodhpur]
5. D.B.C.W.P. No. 15318/2017 Ms. Geetika Tanwar Vs. The State of Raj. & Ors. [Hon'ble RHC,
Jodhpur]
6. D.B.C.W.P. No. 463/2017 Dashrth Kumar Kuldeep Vs. Raj. University of Health Sciences &
Ors. [Hon'ble RHC, Jaipur]
7. D.B.W.A.(MD) No. 1481/2018 The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. J.Vibin & Ors. [Hon'ble Madras HC]
8. S.B.C.W.P. No. 11353/2023 Vijay Kumar Mali Vs. Union of India & Ors. [Hon'ble RHC, Jaipur]
9. S.B.C.W.P. No. 10944/2023 Mukul Vairagi Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. [Hon'ble RHC, Jodhpur]
10. [(2019) 10 SCC (20)] Vidhi Himmat Katariya & Ors. Vs State of Gujarat & Ors.
[2023:RJ-JP:39699-DB] (11 of 50) [SAW-683/2023]
locomotor disability is diagnosed "ERB's PALSY RIGHT UPPER
LIMB" DISABILITY. In the declaration given by the Disability
Assessment Board after medical examination, it has not been
clearly stated as to how the disability specified as "ERB's PALSY
RIGHT UPPER LIMB" DISABILITY is diagnosed as a cause for
medical unfitness to pursue the undergraduate medical course.
The specified disability has not been declared as a ground for
medical unfitness under the Graduate Medical Education
Regulations (Amendment) Rules, 2019. The Disability Assessment
Board acted without application of mind with reference to the
provisions relating to extent of disability and grounds of medical
unfitness stated in the Graduate Medical Course (Amendment)
Rules, 2019. There is no basis for discerning that the requirement
of "both hands intact with intact sensation, sufficient strength and
range of motion" are essential to be considered eligible for medical
course, is not fulfilled only for the reason that the appellant-
Aanchal Sharma suffers from a specified nature of disability called
as "ERB's PALSY RIGHT UPPER LIMB" DISABILITY. It is, therefore,
contended that the appellant-Aanchal Sharma diagnosed with
60% disability, which is well within the upper limit of 80% and
more than 40% benchmark disability, and there being no material
to opine ineligibility to undertake undergraduate medical course,
rejection of the candidature on the ground of unfitness is
completely baseless, arbitrary and being sense logic rationale.
[2023:RJ-JP:39699-DB] (12 of 50) [SAW-683/2023]
In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed
reliance upon several judgments.2
19. Learned counsel appearing for both the appellants raised
common submissions that the certificate of disability issued by the
State authority under the Right of Persons with Disability Act,
2016 read with the Rights of Persons with Disability Rules, 2017
framed by the Central Government and the Disability Rules of
2018 framed by the State Government on one hand, and the
disability certificate of ineligibility issued by the Disability
Assessment Board constituted for the purpose of assessing
eligibility for admission to graduate medical admission course on
the other, are giving conflicting results of examination regarding
existence and extent of disability and, in any case, a case for
sending the appellants for re-examination by one of the
designated Disability Assessment Board was made out but the
application made in this regard was not accepted and was
mechanically rejected without assigning any reasons. Therefore, a
direction is required to be issued for re-examination of the
appellants.
Respondents' submissions:
20. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for National
Medical Commission, Union of India and State Government
opposed the prayer of the appellants by submitting that insofar as
2 1.Dr. Pooja SN Vs Union of India & Ors. [W.P No. 16631/2023] (Karnataka High Court)
2. Anshul Sharma Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.[S.B.C.W.P. No. 4541/2022]
[2023:RJ-JP:39699-DB] (13 of 50) [SAW-683/2023]
the admission to undergraduate medical courses are concerned,
though the provision for reservation to the extent of 5% seats to
persons with benchmark disability has been provided, keeping in
view the level and extent of physical fitness which a medical
professional is required to possess, specific provisions have been
made in Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997 as
amended vide notification dated 13.05.2019. It is contended that
the disability certificates which are issued by the competent
authorities under the provisions of Disability Act, 2016 read with
Central Rules of 2017 and State Rules of 2018 certify broadly the
nature and extent of disability, however, specific conditions of
eligibility have been laid down under the notification dated
13.05.2019 with reference to permissible limits of disability and a
person cannot claim eligibility and fitness only on the basis of
percentage of locomotor disability alone. Referring to the
provisions contained in notification dated 13.05.2019 read with
statutory Form "H-1" which forms part of the notification dated
13.05.2019, it is contended that where a candidate is desirous of
seeking admission to graduate medical course, law requires
maximum limit of disability and at the same time also provides
that if the candidate suffers from particular type of disability,
irrespective of percentage of locomotor disability, he would not be
eligible to undertake graduate medical course. It is further
contended that the requirement in the information bulletin that
the candidate should get themselves examined by the competent
[2023:RJ-JP:39699-DB] (14 of 50) [SAW-683/2023]
authority constituted for the purpose of issuing disability
certificate is to ensure that a candidate, before participating in the
process of selection, need to satisfy with regard to eligibility to
appear in the examination and also his entitlement to admission
against seats reserved for persons with benchmark disability. That
would not mean that those certificate issued by the State
authority are binding and conclusive. The requirement of getting
medically examined by one of the designated Disability
Assessment Board is prescribed under the law in those cases
where a person suffers from locomotor disability and is desirous of
pursuing graduate medical course. Additional statutory
requirements have been provided under the notification dated
13.05.2019 which amended existing regulation of Graduate
Medical Education, 1997. Such eligibility requirements are
specified for the purposes of admission to graduate medical
course. Therefore, it is argued that even if a particular candidate
suffers from benchmark disability within the permissible range of
disability, additionally, the candidate should not suffer from the
kind of disability provided under the special provisions contained
in Form (Schedule "H-1") appended to notification dated
13.05.2019. The appellants were medically examined by the
designated Disability Assessment Board with reference to not only
the benchmark disability but also whether they are fit to
undertake graduate medical course. The board consisted of highly
qualified experts and the medical examination of the appellants
[2023:RJ-JP:39699-DB] (15 of 50) [SAW-683/2023]
was conducted in a fair manner by a team of experts in the field of
medical science. After thorough medical examination, a fair
assessment on objective criteria was made and it was opined that
the two appellants, suffering from certain types of disabilities, are
not fit to undertake graduate medical course. The experts opinion,
in the absence of violation of any statutory provisions much less
any allegation of malafide or competence, may not be interfered
with in view of settled legal position that the scope of interference
with the opinion of experts is extremely narrow and limited to
specified grounds and the Court would not sit over the same as
another body of experts to substitute its own opinion in place of
that by the experts. The appellants' claim of eligibility to
undertake graduate medical course is based only on the
percentage of locomotor disability in ignorance of the fact that on
account of appellants having suffered from specific type of
disability, were not eligible. Such criteria is statutorily prescribed
in Schedule "H-1". In support of their submissions, learned
counsel for the respondents relied upon several judgments.3
1. All Kerala Parents Association Hearing Impaired Vs. State of Kerela & Ors. [C.A. No. 6120/2001]
2. Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Health Vs. Sanchita Biswas [C.A. No. 4064/2000]
3. Dr. Raman Khanna Vs. University of Delhi & Ors. [W.P. (c) 2670/2003]
4. D.S. Rashmi Rajan Vs. Chairman, J.E.E. & Ors. [W.P. Nos. 7877 & 7878/2004]
5. MCI Vs D.S. Rashmi Ranjan & Ors. [SLP (C) Nos. 7952-53/2005]
6. MCI Vs. D.S. Rashmi Ranjan & Ors. [SLP (C) Nos. 7952-53/2005]
7. MCI Vs. D.S. Rashmi Ranjan & Ors. [SLP (C) Nos. 8447-8448/2010]
8. Deepshika Vs. MCI & Ors. [W.P. (C) No. 4218/2014]
9. Rutuja Dattatraya Raut Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [W.P. 9556/2016]
10. Purswani Ashutosh (Minor) Vs. Union of India & Ors. [W.P. (C) No. 669/2018]
11. R. Sakeela Vs Secretary to Govt. & Ors. [W.P. (MD) No. 15696/2019]
12. Manohar Lal Swami Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [SLP (C) No. 21366/2019]
13. Vidhi Himmat Katariya & Ors. Vs The State of Gujarat & Ors. [W.P. (C) No. 885/2019]
14. Rakshit Yadav Vs. University College of Medical Science & Ors. [W.P. (C) No. 8572/2019]
15. Purushottam Vs. Union of India & Ors. [W.P. (C) No. 7915/2020]
16. Purushottam Vs. Union of India & Ors. [SLP (C) No. 14953/2020]
17. S. Amina Vs. State of Kerela & Ors. [W.P. (C) No. 28457/2020]
18. Anita Prakash Shinde Vs. Union of India & Ors. [2021 SCC Online Bom 257]
19. Anita Prakash Shinde Vs. Union of India & Ors. [SLP (C) No. 18382/2021]
20. Alok Ranjan Vs. NMC & Ors. [W.P. (C) No. 9933/2020]
21. Sathe Vaibhavi Sanjay Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. [SCA No. 2448/2022]
22. Neha Pudil Vs. UOI & ORS. [W.P. (C) No. 2815/2022]
23. Ayushi Mansukhbhai Movaliya Vs. State of Gujarat [R/SCA No. 17451/2022]
24. Ishaben Rameshbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat [R/LPA No. 1209/2022]
25. Ishaben Rameshbhai Patel Vs. The State of Gujarat & Anr. [SLP (C) No. 22692/2022]
[2023:RJ-JP:39699-DB] (16 of 50) [SAW-683/2023]
Analysis, reasoning and conclusion:
21. During the course of hearing, this Court directed the
respondents to submit, in a sealed cover, the relevant records
relating to medical examination of the two appellants by Disability
Assessment Boards. Learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-Union of India has submitted those records of medical
examination in two sealed covers, one relating to appellant-Anmol
and the other relating to Appellant-Aanchal Sharma.
22. In order to give effect to the proclamation on the full
participation and equality of the people with disabilities in Asian
and Pacific Region of India, Parliament enacted the Persons with
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 1995. Amongst other beneficial provisions
mandating framing of scheme for ensuring employment of persons
with disabilities, Section 39 mandated that all Government
educational institutions and other educational institutions,
receiving aid from Government, shall reserve not less than 3%
seats for persons with disabilities. In exercise of Rule making
power, the Central Government framed Rules of 1996 for the
purpose of carrying out the objective of the Act. The aforesaid Act
was repelled by a subsequent enactment known as the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. New Rules were framed by the
Central Government known as Rights of Persons with Disability
Rules, 2017. Amongst other beneficial provisions, Section 32 of
the new Act also provided for reservation in higher educational
[2023:RJ-JP:39699-DB] (17 of 50) [SAW-683/2023]
institutions mandating that all Government institutions of higher
education and other higher educational institutions, receiving aid
from the Government, shall reserve not less than 5% seats for
persons with benchmark disabilities. It also provided for upper age
relaxation of 5 years for admission in institutions of higher
education. Chapter-X deals with certification of specified disability.
Under that chapter, Section 56 provides for guidelines for
assessment of specified disability; Section 57 specifies designation
of certifying authorities and Section 58 lay down procedure for
certification. Chapter-XI contains provisions with regard to
constitution of Central and State advisory boards on disability and
district level committee.
Parliament enacted Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 to
provide for the re-constitution of the Medical Council of India and
the maintenance of medical register for India and for the matters
connected therewith. In exercise of powers conferred by Section
33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, the Medical Council of
India, with previous sanction of the Central Government, framed
Regulations known as the Regulations of Graduate Medical
Education, 1997 which deals with the competencies laying broad
guidelines with regard to admission, selection, counseling,
migration, training, teaching approach, curriculum, internship etc.
The aforesaid Regulations were amended from time to time which
also included provisions for reservation in admission to graduate
courses for the benefit of persons with benchmark disabilities.
[2023:RJ-JP:39699-DB] (18 of 50) [SAW-683/2023]
The Regulations of 1997 was amended vide notification dated
22.01.2018 whereby the Clause 3 of Chapter-II under the heading
"Admission to Medical Course and Eligibility Criteria" was
amended. It provided that 5% seats of the annual sanctioned
intake capacity shall be filled by the candidates with benchmark
disabilities in accordance with the provisions of the Rights of
Persons with Disability Act, 2016, based on the merit list of
'National Eligibility Entrance Test'. It further provided that for this
purpose, the specific disability contained in the schedule to Rights
of Persons with Disability Act, 2016 is annexed as Appendix-"G".
Thereafter, vide notification dated 04.02.2019, the
Regulations of 1997 were further amended under the heading
'Admission to Medical Course-Eligibility Criteria' and Regulation (3)
was substituted, including in respect of admission of students with
specified disabilities. By amendment vide notification dated
04.02.2019 (Regulations of Graduate Medical Education
(Amendment), 2019), it was now provided that 5% of the annual
sanctioned intake capacity in Government or Government aided
higher educational institutions shall be filled up by candidates with
benchmark disabilities in accordance with the provisions of the Act
of 2016, based on the merit list of NEET and for this purpose, the
specified disability contained in the Schedule of the Act of 2016 is
annexed in Appendix-"G". It was provided that the eligibility of the
candidate to pursue a course in medicine with specified disability
shall be in accordance with Appendix-"H". A new Appendix-"H"
[2023:RJ-JP:39699-DB] (19 of 50) [SAW-683/2023]
containing guidelines was added which contained guidelines
regarding admission of students with specific disability under the
Act of 2016 with respect to admission in MBBS.
Vide notification dated 13.05.2019, in exercise of powers
conferred by Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956,
the Board of Governors, with the previous sanction of the Central
Government, made regulations to further amend the Regulations
of 1997, called as "Graduate Medical Education Regulations
(Amendment), 2019". By this amendment, Appendix "H"-
"Guidelines regarding admission of students with specified
disabilities" under the Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016
with respect to admission in MBBS was substituted by Appendix
"H-1". Appendix "H-1" contained guidelines regarding admission of
students with specific disability under the Right of Persons with
Disability Act, 2016 in respect to admission in MBBS course.
23. Information bulletin for admission to undergraduate medical
course through NEET (UG) 2023, which has been placed on record
along with the petition filed by Anmol and also along with the
reply of the National Medical Commission, lay down reservation
policy for admission to MBBS and BDS course. Provision of
reservation for persons with disability as per requirement of the
Act of 2016 and the Rules made thereunder was made under
Clause (6.2) of the bulletin. Reservation against 5% of seats in
each of General, General-EWS, OBC-NCL, SC and ST category
[2023:RJ-JP:39699-DB] (20 of 50) [SAW-683/2023]
(horizontal reservation) were provided. Being relevant in the
present case, Clause 6.2 is extracted herein below:
"6.2 Reservation Policy for Admission to MBBS and
BDS Course.
xxx
➢ Scheduled Caste (SC)-15% of seats in every course.
➢ Scheduled Tribe (ST)- 7.5% seats in every course.
➢ Persons with Disability (PwBD)- 5% seats in each
of Gen, Gen-EWS, OBC-NCL, SC and ST category setas
(Horizontal reservation).
1. Candidates who want to avail the
benefits of PwBD reservation in admission to
MBBS/BDS course, the disability norms as
prescribed by NMC (earlier known as
MCI)/DCI norms will be adhered with, and
only those candidates will be eligible for the
benefit of reservation."
In no uncertain words, it was clearly stated that for availing
the benefits of reservation of persons with disability PwBD, it is
the disability norm which is prescribed by National Medical
Commission (constituted under the National Medical Commission
2019 which substituted the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956) will
be adhered with and only those candidates will be eligible for the
benefit of reservation.
Clause 6.3, 6.4, 6.5 contained guidelines relating to persons
with PwBD.
Clause 6.6 provides for reservation in Central
Institutes/Universities in the manner that 5% seats (Horizontal
Reservation) for PwBD candidates would be provided with the
clarification that in the State Quota
[2023:RJ-JP:39699-DB] (21 of 50) [SAW-683/2023]
Seats/Universities/Institutions/Private Medical Colleges under the
State Governments, reservation policy of the concerned State
Government shall apply.
Clause 6.7 lay down guidelines for PwBD candidates. It being
relevant in the present case, is extracted herein below:
"6.7 Guidelines for PwBD Candidates
a. The candidates with a Disability shall be considered
for admission in medical course against 5% of the total
seats, in accordance with the criteria prescribed under
the Regulation on Graduate Medical Education (1997)
as amended up to 13-05-2019.
b. Candidates who consider themselves eligible for this
category are advised to ensure their eligibility by
getting themselves examined at any Government
Medical College/District Hospital/Government Hospital.
Such Government Medical College/District
Hospital/Government Hospital shall issue a Disability
Certificate in reference to Chapter-VII to the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017. Such a Disability
Certificate is issued as per the Schedule to the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and the
Guidelines for the purpose of assessing the extent of
specified disability in a person included under the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 notified in
the Gazette of India by the Ministry of Social Justice
and Empowerment [Department of Empowerment of
Persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan)] on 4th January
2018 and does not confer any right on any candidate
to seek admission in a medical course under PwBD
Quota. The aforesaid Certificate shall be ascertain
whether a candidate can apply to NTA for appearing in
NEET (UG) - 2023 under the PwBD Quota only.
c. Thereafter, the candidates, upon selection under
PwBD Category, shall have to produce a Disability
Certificate issued by the Disability Assessment Board,
which shall have assessed the candidate in reference
to criteria prescribed under the Regulations on
Graduate Medical Education, 1997 as amended up to
13.05.2019. Thus, it is relevant that the candidates
after a declaration of the result have to appear before
the 16 designated Disability Assessment Board so as
to determine whether they may register or participate
[2023:RJ-JP:39699-DB] (22 of 50) [SAW-683/2023]
in the common online Counselling towards admission
to medical courses.
List of the 16 Designated Disability centres has
been annexed (Appendix-VII).
d. In case candidates are found ineligible by the 16
designated Disability Assessment Board, in reference
to criteria prescribed under the Regulations on
Graduate Medical Education, 1997 as amended on
14.05.2019, they may not register or participate in
the common online Counselling and any online
provisional allotment of the medical college shall be
entirely fraudulent on the part of the candidate. It is
relevant that physical verification of various certificates
including academic as well as Disability Certificate is
only upon reporting for admission to the medical
college.
e. It is further clarified that the certificates issued by
the authorized Centres designated for the purpose of
DGHS, shall only be considered for admission to the
medical courses and no other certificate issued by any
other Government Medical College/District
Hospital/Government Hospital will be accepted.
f. The Disability Certificate to be issued in the
format given in Appendix-VI has to be issued by
the designated Centres, as per the criteria
prescribed under the Regulations on Graduate Medical
Education (1997) as amended upto 14.05.2019, w.r.t.
common conselling conducted by MCC/DGHS for All
India Quota seats and for Medical Institutions that are
subject to common counselling of MCC/DGHS.
g. Likewise, the designated Counselling Authorities of
State/UT Governments shall constitute Disability
Assessment Boards/Centres for assessing the
suitability of the candidate in reference to criteria
prescribed under the Regulations on Graduate Medical
Education (1997) as amended up to 14.05.2019 and
shall notify the same on their respective websites.
h. The reservation policy, as prescribed by the
government from time to time will be followed by the
admitting institutes. The candidates are advised to
look for the details at the time of admission."
The aforesaid guidelines clearly stipulated that the
candidates with disability shall be considered for admission in
medical course against 5% of the total seats, in accordance with
[2023:RJ-JP:39699-DB] (23 of 50) [SAW-683/2023]
the criteria prescribed under the Regulation of Graduate Medical
Education, 1997 as amended up to 13.05.2019. It was also
clarified that those candidates who consider themselves eligible
are advised to ensure eligibility by getting themselves examined
at any Government Medical College/District Hospital/Government
Hospital, who shall issue a disability certificate in reference to
Chapter-VII of the Rules of 2017. It was further made clear that
such certificate does not confer any right on any candidate to seek
admission in a medical course under the PwBD Quota and such
certificate are only to ascertain whether a candidate can apply to
NTA for appearing in the NEET (UG) 2023 under the PwBD Quota
only.
24. The aforesaid guidelines made it clear that the candidates,
upon selection under PwBD category, shall have to produce
disability certificate issued by the Disability Assessment Board
which shall have assessed the candidate in reference to criteria
prescribed under the Regulations of 1997 as amended up to
13.05.2019. Therefore, the candidates were required to appear
before any of the 16 designated Assessment Boards so as to
determine whether they may register or participate in the online
counselling towards admission to the medical course. List of 16
designated centers was annexed as Appendix-VII with the
information bulletin. The aforesaid guidelines also made it clear
that those who are found ineligible may not register or participate
in the counselling and any online provisional allotment shall be
[2023:RJ-JP:39699-DB] (24 of 50) [SAW-683/2023]
fraudulent on the part of the candidate. It was clarified that the
certificate issued by authorized centers designated for the purpose
of DGHS, shall only be considered for admission to the medical
course and no other certificate issued by any other Government
Medical College/District Hospital/Government Hospital will be
accepted. Moreover, it was further provided that disability
certificate to be issued in the format given in Appendix-XI has to
be issued by the designated centers as per the guidelines
prescribed under the Regulations of 1997 as amended up to
13.05.2019. Notification dated 13.05.2019 notified Graduate
Medical Education Regulation (Amendment), 2019 was also
appended with the bulletin as Appendix-VI, reference of which has
been already made herein above. List of centers for disability
certificate was appended as Appendix-VII and the format of
disability certificate was also appended as Appendix-XI.
25. In cases where a person is desirous of seeking admission to
undergraduate medical course, in the matter of his assessment of
specified disability, certifying authority and the procedure thereof
is governed by special provisions contained in Graduate Medical
Education (Amendment), 2019 amending Graduate Medical
Education Regulations, 1997. By such amendment, vide Appendix
"H-1" Guidelines regarding admission of students with specified
disability under the Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016
with respect to admission in MBBS course have been laid down.
[2023:RJ-JP:39699-DB] (25 of 50) [SAW-683/2023]
The aforesaid Appendix "H-1" being most relevant for the purpose
of the present case is extracted herein below:
Appendix "H-1"
Guidelines regarding admission of students with "Specified
Disabilities" under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Act, 2016 with respect to admission in MBBS Course.
Note: 1. The "Certificate of Disability" shall be issued in
accordance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017
notified in the Gazette of India by the Ministry of Social Justice
and Empowerment [Department of Empowerment of Persons with
Disabilities (Divyangjan)] on 15th June 2017.
2. The extent of "specified disability" in a person shall be assessed
in accordance with the "Guidelines for the purpose of assessing
the extent of specified disability in a person included under the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (49 of 2016)" notified
in the Gazette of India by the Ministry of Social Justice and
Empowerment [Department of Empowerment of Persons with
Disabilities (Divyangjan)] on 4th January 2018.
3. The minimum degree of disability should be 40% (Benchmark
Disability) in order to be eligible for availing reservation for
persons with specified disability.
4. The term 'Persons with Disabilities' (PwD) is to be used instead
of the term 'Physically Handicapped' (PH).
S. Disabil Type of Specified Disability Range
No ity Disability Disability Eligible for Eligible for Not Eligible
Type Medical Course, Medical for Medical
Not Eligible for Course, Course
PwD Quota Eligible for
PwD Quota
1. Physic A. a. Leprosy Less than 40% 40-80% More than
al Locomotor cured person* disability disability 80%
Disabil Disability, b. Persons with
Cerebral
ity including Palsy** more than 80%
Specified disability may
Disabilities c. Dwarfism also be allowed
(a to f) d. Muscular on case to case
Dystrophy basis and their
functional
e. Acid attack
[2023:RJ-JP:39699-DB] (26 of 50) [SAW-683/2023]
victims competency
will be
f. Others***
determined
such as
with the aid of
Amputation,
assistive
Poliomyelitis,
devices, if it is
etc.
being used, to
see if it is
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.
B. Visual a. Blindness Less than 40% - Equal to or
Impairment b. Low vision disability More than
(*) 40%
Disability
C. Hearing a. Deaf Less than 40% - Equal to or
impairment b. Hard of disability more than
@ 40%
hearing
Disability
(*) Persons with Visual impairment/visual disability of more
than 40% may be made eligible to pursue MBBS Course and
may be given reservation, subject to the condition that the
visual disability is brought to a level of less than the benchmark
of 40% with advanced low vision aids such as
telescopes/magnifier etc.
@ Persons with hearing disability of more than 40% may be
made eligible to pursue MBBS Course and may be given
reservation, subject to the condition that the hearing disability is
brought to a level of less than the benchmark of 40% with the
aid of assistive devices.
In addition to this, the individual should have a speech
discrimination score of more than 60%.
D. Speech Organic/neurol Less than 40% - Equal to or
& language ogical causes Disability more than
disability 40%
Disability
[2023:RJ-JP:39699-DB] (27 of 50) [SAW-683/2023]
$ Persons with Speech Intelligibility Affected (SIA) shall be eligible to
pursue MBBS Courses, provided Speech Intelligibility Affected (SIA)score
shall not exceed 3 (three), which is 40% or below.
Persons with Aphasia shall be eligible to pursue MBBS Courses, provided
Aphasia Quotient (AQ) is 40% or below.
2. Intelle a. Specific # currently there is no Quantification scale
ctual learning available to assess the severity of SpLD,
Disabil disabilities therefore the cut-off of 40% is arbitrary and
ity (Perpetual more evidence is needed.
disabilities, Less than 40% Equal to or More than
Dyslexia, Disability more than 40% 80% or
Dyscalculia, disability and severe
Dyspraxia & equal to or less nature or
Developmental than 80%. significant
aphasia)# But selection cognitive/in
will be based tellectual
on the learning disability.
competency
evaluated with
the help of the
remediation/ass
isted
technology/aids
/infrastructural
changes by the
Expert Panel.
b. Autism Absence or Mild Currently not More than
spectrum Disability, recommended 60%
disorders Asperger due to lack of disability or
syndrome objective presence of
(disability of method to cognitive/in
upto 60% as per establish tellectual
ISAA) where presence and disability
the individual is extent of and/or if the
fit for MBBS mental illness. person is
course by an However, the unfit for
expert panel. benefit of pursuing
reservation/quo MBBS
ta may be course by
considered in an expert
future after panel.
developing
better methods
of disability
assessment.
3. Mental Mental illness Absence or mild Currently not Equal to or
behavi Disability: less recommended more than
our than 40% (under due to lack of 40%
IDEAS) objective disability or
method to if the person
establish is unfit to
presence and perform
extent of his/her
[2023:RJ-JP:39699-DB] (28 of 50) [SAW-683/2023]
mental illness. duties.
However, the Standards
benefit of may be
reservation/quo drafted for
ta may be the
considered in definition of
future after "fitness to
developing practice
better methods medicine",
of disability as are used
assessment. by several
institutions
of countries
other than
India.
4. Disabil a. Chronic i. Multiple Less than 40% 40-80% More than
ity Neurologic Sclerosis Disability disability 80%
caused al ii.
due to Conditions Parkinsonism
b. Blood i. Haemophilia Less than 40% 40-80% More than
Disorders ii. Thalassemia Disability disability 80%
iii. Sickle cell
disease
5. Multip More than one Must consider all above while deciding in
le of the above individual cases recommendations with respect
disabil specified to presence any of the above, namely, Visual,
ities disabilities Hearing, Speech & Language disability,
includi Intellectual Disability, and Mental Illness as a
ng component of Multiple Disability.
deaf Combining Formula as notified by the related
blindn Gazette Notification issued by the Govt. of
ess India.
a + (b(90-a)/90)
(where a= higher value of disability % and
b=lower value of disability % as calculated for
different disabilities)
is recommended for computing the disability
arising when more than one disabling condition
is present in a given individual. This formula
may be used in cases with multiple disabilities,
and recommendations regarding admission
and/or reservation made as per the specific
disabilities present in a given individual.
26. Therefore, for a person who has been issued a disability
certificate by the certifying authority in the prescribed manner,
[2023:RJ-JP:39699-DB] (29 of 50) [SAW-683/2023]
following procedure prescribed under the Act of 2016 read with
the Central Government Rules of 2017 read with notification of
2018 and the State Rules of 2019 and seeking admission to
graduate medical course, a special provision exists insofar as the
assessment of disability for the purpose of admission to medical
course is concerned.
27. The information bulletin clearly provided that for the purpose
of admission to undergraduate medical course, the assessment of
disability shall be in accordance with the notification dated
13.05.2019 and that an advisory has been issued to candidates
seeking reservation under the PwBD Quota to obtain certificate
from the authority specified under the Act of 2016 and the Rules
made thereunder for the purpose of their own satisfaction that
they are eligible. In other words, the scheme of examination
provided that admission will be subject to a candidate being found
fit on the basis of the disability certificate to be issued after
examination by one of the designated Assessment Boards enlisted
along with the notification.
28. Vide notice dated 05.07.2023, DGHS (Government of India)
invited attention of all PwD candidates of NEET (UG) 2023
notifying that those who have registered themselves under the
PwD Quota in NEET (UG) 2023 and desirous to get PwD through
counselling process may get the disability certificate issued from
any of the designated NEET Disability Screening Centers. It was
clarified that the candidates have to visit the designated disability
[2023:RJ-JP:39699-DB] (30 of 50) [SAW-683/2023]
NEET Screening Center for physical examination and quantification
of their disability and obtain the PwD certificate.
29. Both the appellants herein, Anmol and Aanchal Sharma
approached designated Assessment Boards for their examination
and submitted them for examination as per the scheme of
examination. While appellant-Anmol was examined by Lady
Hardinge Medical College and Associated Hospitals, New Delhi,
appellant-Aanchal Sharma was examined by Disability Assessment
Board in Atal Bihari Vajpayee Institute of Medical Sciences and Dr.
Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi.
30. Certificate of disability for NEET admission dated 21.07.2023
issued by Disability Board in respect of Anmol certifies and
declares disability as below:
CERTIFICATE OF DISABILITY FOR NEET ADMISSIONS
(As per MCI Gazette Notification No.MCI-18(1)/2018-Med./187262 dated 5 th Feb, 2019/14th May,
2019 for admission to Medical Courses in All India quota)
Certificate No : 2023-July/002004 Certificate Date:. 21-Jul-2023
Name of the Designated Disability Lady Hardinge Medical College & Associated
Certificate Centre Hospitals, New Delhi
This to certify that Dr./Mr./Ms. ANMOL
Age 19 Son/Daughter of Mr. SUBHASH CHANDER
NEET ROLL NO. 3916030239 Rank No. 620955
Has the following Disability
Disability Details
S. Disability Type Type of Disability Specified Disability Disability %
No.
1 Physical Disability Speech & Language Disability Organic/Neurological 55
Causes
2 Physical Disability Locomotor Disability Others 66
Conclusion : Based on quantification of Disability The Candidate is not eligible to pursue
medical course (as per NMC norms).
[2023:RJ-JP:39699-DB] (31 of 50) [SAW-683/2023]
Remark : Congenital Amputation Middle Phalanx Index and middle finger right hand and
disarticulation Through PIP joints middle and ring finger left hand and bilateral operated club
feet with partial loss of all toes left foot and Speech disability. Total disability percentage after
adding both disability with formula is eighty one percent. The Candidate is not eligible to
pursue medical course as per NMC norms. There is involvement of both hands and both feet as
well as speech disability.
The Disability Certification Board certifies that the candidate is Not Eligible for admission in
Medical/Dental courses and to avail 5% PwD reservation as per the NMC/MCI Gazette
Notification.
If 'Not Eligible' the reason for the same is. Congenital Amputation Middle Phalanx Index
and middle finger right hand and disarticulation through PIP joints middle and ring finger left
hand and bilateral operated club feet with partial loss of all toes left foot and Speech disability.
Total disability percentage after adding both disability with formula is eighty one percent. The
Candidate is not eligible to pursue medical course as per NMC norms. There is involvement of
both hands and both feet as well as speech disability.
Functional competency with the aid of Assistive devices in case of Locomotor*/Visual*/
Hearing* Impairment, if any. Not Applicable.
Sign & Name : Dr. S.K.Rasania Sign & Name : Dr. Sunil Kumar Sign & Name : Dr.Ritu Majumdar
Director Professor Vice Principal and Director Professor and HOD
Chairperson ENT Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Community Medicine
Disclaimer: This Certificate is Provisional and will be verified by the allotted college authorities at the time
of admission. The candidate may be subjected to diagnostic test to specify the level of disability again at
the allotted college in case of any ambiguity. The certificate may be cross verified by the admitting college
from the Disability Board from where the certificate has been issued. Hence, the Designated Disability
Boards and the candidates are advised to preserve the records for any future reference. The Disability
Certificate is valid for this academic session only.
31. Appellant-Anmol was found suffering from speech and
language disability as well as locomotor disability of specified
percentage. Upon examination, the Board declared that Anmol is
not eligible to pursue medical course as per NMC norms. Remarks
contained observations upon medical examination and according
to the declaration, total disability percentage after adding both
disabilities with formula was 81%. Further, he was held not eligible
to pursue medical course as per the NMC norms because he had
involvement of both hands and both feet as well as speech
disability.
[2023:RJ-JP:39699-DB] (32 of 50) [SAW-683/2023]
32. As far as appellant-Aanchal Sharma is concerned, declaration
of disability and eligibility in the certificate issued by the
designated Assessment Board is as under:
CERTIFICATE OF DISABILITY FOR NEET ADMISSIONS
(As per MCI Gazette Notification No.MCI-18(1)/2018-Med./187262 dated 5 th Feb, 2019/14th May,
2019 for admission to Medical Courses in All India quota)
Certificate No : 2023-July/001625 Certificate Date:. 18-Jul-2023
Name of the Designated Disability Ram Manohar Lohia Institute of Medical
Certificate Centre Sciences & Dr. RML Hospital, NEW DELHI
This to certify that Dr./Mr./Ms. AANCHAL SHARMA
Age 17 Son/Daughter DURGA PRASAD SHARMA
of Mr.
NEET ROLL NO. 3903380463 Rank No. 168404
Has the following Disability
Disability Details
S. Disability Type Type of Disability Specified Disability Disability %
No.
1 Physical Disability Locomotor Disability Others 60
Conclusion : Based on quantification of Disability The Candidate is not eligible to pursue
medical course (as per NMC norms).
Remark : ERBs PALSY RIGHT UPPER LIMB.
The Disability Certification Board certifies that the candidate is Not Eligible for admission in
Medical/Dental courses and to avail 5% PwD reservation as per the NMC/MCI Gazette
Notification.
'Not Eligible' the reason for the same is : ERBs PALSY RIGHT UPPER LIMB
Sign & Name : DR. SHIPRA Sign & Name : DR. VASU Sign & Name : DR. SUMEDH SANDANSHIV
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR ASSISTANT PROFESSOR ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
ORTHOPAEDIC DEPARTMENT ORTHOPAEDIC DEPARTMENT
Disclaimer: This Certificate is Provisional and will be verified by the allotted college authorities at the time
of admission. The candidate may be subjected to diagnostic test to specify the level of disability again at
the allotted college in case of any ambiguity. The certificate may be cross verified by the admitting college
from the Disability Board from where the certificate has been issued. Hence, the Designated Disability
Boards and the candidates are advised to preserve the records for any future reference. The Disability
Certificate is valid for this academic session only.
[2023:RJ-JP:39699-DB] (33 of 50) [SAW-683/2023]
33. She was found having locomotor disability of specified
percentage. However, the conclusion based on quantification of
disability was that the Aanchal Sharma is not eligible to pursue
medical course (as per NMC course). In the remark column it has
been mentioned the nature of disability as "ERB's PALSY RIGHT
UPPER LIMB". Therefore, on this basis, the authority opined that
she is not eligible to pursue medical course.
34. Before proceeding to deal with the various aspects of
challenge to the correctness and validity of the aforesaid
certificates issued by the respective disabilities Assessment Boards
in favour of appellants, it would be profitable to refer to the
observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidhi
Himmat Katariya & Ors. vs State of Gujarat & Ors.,
delineating the scope and limitations of judicial review as below:
"8. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the
petitioners that while denying admission to the petitioners
the State Government and/or authorities have not
considered the relevant parameters and have not
considered that the respective petitioners are able to
perform well is concerned, it is required to be noted that
in the present case all the expert bodies including the
Medical Board, Medical Appellate Board and even the
Medical Board of AIIMS, New Delhi consisting of the
experts have opined against the petitioners and their
cases are considered in light of the relevant essential
eligibility criteria as mentioned as Appendix 'H' - 'Both
hands intact, with intact sensation, sufficient strength and
range of motion'. Therefore, when the experts in the field
have opined against the petitioners, the Court would not
be justified in sitting over as an appellate authority
against the opinion formed by the experts- in the present
case, the Medical Board, Medical Appellate Board and the
Medical Board of AIIMS, New Delhi, more particularly
when there are no allegations of mala fides."
[2023:RJ-JP:39699-DB] (34 of 50) [SAW-683/2023]
35. It is also relevant to note that though the appellants have
challenged the action of the respondents in declaring them unfit
for undertaking medical course, there is no allegation of mala fides
levelled against individual members of the body of experts
constituting the Disability Assessment Board.
36. As far as appellant-Anmol is concerned, disability certificate
issued by the DAB reveals that the Board while assessing multiple
disabilities i.e. speech and language disability and also the
locomotor disability, declared that the candidate suffers from
organic/neurological cases to the extent of 55% insofar as speech
and language disability is concerned.
As regards the locomotor disability, the extent was quantified
as 66%. It further states that conclusion is based on quantification
of disability. The remarks as to why the candidate was not found
eligible to pursue the medical course (as per the NMC norms)
observe that:
"Remark: Congenital Amputation Middle Phalanx Index
and middle finger right hand and disarticulation Through
PIP joints middle and ring finger left hand and bilateral
operated club feet with partial loss of all toes left foot and
Speech disability. Total disability percentage after adding
both disability with formula is eighty one percent. The
Candidate is not eligible to pursue medical course as per
NMC norms. There is involvement of both hands and
both feet as well as speech disability.
The Disability Certification Board certifies that the
candidate is Not Eligible for admission in Medical/Dental
courses and to avail 5% PwD reservation as per the
NMC/MCI Gazette Notification.
If 'Not Eligible' the reason for the same is.
Congenital Amputation Middle Phalanx Index and middle
finger right hand and disarticulation through PIP joints
[2023:RJ-JP:39699-DB] (35 of 50) [SAW-683/2023]
middle and ring finger left hand and bilateral operated
club feet with partial loss of all toes left foot and Speech
disability. Total disability percentage after adding both
disability with formula is eighty one percent. The
Candidate is not eligible to pursue medical course as per
NMC norms. There is involvement of both hands and both
feet as well as speech disability.
Functional competency with the aid of Assistive devices
in case of Locomotor*/Visual*/ Hearing*
Impairment, if any. Not Applicable."
Therefore, we find that detailed observations in the form of
remarks have been contained in the certificate as to why the body
of experts did not find the appellant-Anmol eligible to pursue
medical course.
37. Similarly, appellant-Aanchal Sharma was also not found
eligible to pursue the medical course (as per the NMC nroms). In
her certificate, the remarks observes "ERBs PALSY RIGHT UPPER
LIMB". It is relevant to note here that though the percentage of
locomotor disability was assessed as 60% based on quantification
of disability, yet, having found that the appellant-Aanchal Sharma
suffers from "ERBs PALSY RIGHT UPPER LIMB", she was found not
eligible.
38. It is important to note here that the two Disability
Assessment Boards, which assessed the disabilities of the
appellants herein, consisted of medical experts (3 in number), in
each case. Challenge to the certificate of disability and the
assessment made by the body of experts is not made on the
ground that the experts, constituting the Board, were not
statutorily competent or qualified to act as experts for carrying out
the assessment of disability.
[2023:RJ-JP:39699-DB] (36 of 50) [SAW-683/2023]
39. Graduate Medical Education Regulation of 1997 framed in
exercise of statutory powers under the Indian Medical Council Act,
1956, as initially framed, did not contain any provision with regard
to the assessment of disability and eligibility of persons with
disability nor they made any provisions with regard to benchmark
disability or any provision with regard to eligibility of persons with
disability, to undertake medical education course. However, in
view of the statutory mandate under the Right of Persons with
Disability Act, 2016 and the Rules framed thereunder, successive
amendments were made in the Regulation of 1997, which have
been detailed herein above. Under the amendment vide
notification dated 22.01.2018 added Appendix-"G" provided for
specified disability. However, vide subsequent amendment vide
notification dated 04.02.2019, a new appendix, Appendix-"H" was
added after Appendix-"G", as has been noted herein above.
Amendment vide notification dated 04.02.2019 not only provided
for specified disability under Appendix-"G" but the Regulations
now lay down the eligibility of candidate to pursue the course in
medicine with specified disability and for this purpose a new
Appendix-"H" was added which contained guidelines regarding
admission of students with specified disability under the Act of
2016 with respect to the admission in MBBS. While laying down
types of disabilities, specified disability and disability range,
eligibility prescriptions were also added. Therefore, apart from the
quantified percentage of disability of a particular type, certain
[2023:RJ-JP:39699-DB] (37 of 50) [SAW-683/2023]
eligibility conditions were included which provided that if a person
with disability suffers from peculiar disability feature then he
would not be eligible to pursue the graduate medical course. With
reference to Clause (f) of Serial No. 1 of para 4 in Appendix "H", it
was stated that both hands intact, with intact sensation, sufficient
strength and range of motion are essential to be considered
eligible for medical course. Therefore, while assessing the nature
and extent of disability, the Assessment Board was necessarily
required to examine the nature and extent of disability with
particular reference to the aforesaid prescriptions of eligibility and
then give its opinion as to whether the candidate desirous of
seeking admission to medical course is medically fit and eligible.
This prescription of eligibility in addition to specification of nature
and extent of disability was continued while further amending
Regulations of 1997 vide amendment dated 13.05.2019.
Appendix-H of the notification dated 04.02.2019 was substituted
by a new set of guidelines as Appendix "H-1". Appendix "H-1" has
already been extracted herein above.
Under Serial No. 1 with reference to the locomotor disability
including the specified disability, Clause (f) deals with other
specified disability such as Amputation, Poliomyelitis etc. The
eligibility for medical course, though not eligible for PwD Quota, is
limited when specific disability is less than 40%. However, when
the specified disability is more than 40% but within the range of
80%, the person is eligible for medical course as also eligible for
[2023:RJ-JP:39699-DB] (38 of 50) [SAW-683/2023]
PwD quota. In case, however, specific disability is quantified is
more than 80%, as in the case of appellant-Anmol, he is not
eligible for medical course. It has also been provided that both
hands intact, with intact sensation, sufficient strength and range
of motion are essential to be considered eligible for medical
course. Therefore, irrespective of the disability, its nature and
extent, the aforesaid prescription essentially relates to the aspect
of eligibility to pursue the medical course. At the time when the
appellants were examined by the respective DABs, the aforesaid
guidelines under Appendix "H-1" was in force. Therefore, the
Board was empowered under the law not only to identify the
nature of disability, quantification and extent of disability but also
to examine the candidates with reference to eligibility aspect. The
case of the two appellants were examined by the Boards, being
experts, not only with reference to the nature and extent of
disability but also keeping in view the statutory prescriptions
dealing with the aspect of eligibility. This particular statutory
prescription did not form part of the Regulations of 1997 prior to
the notification dated 04.02.2019. However, after the
amendments in the Regulations of 1997 vide notification dated
04.02.2019 and notification dated 13.05.2019, the designated
Assessment Board was empowered to examine the candidates
desirous of seeking admission to medical course not only with
reference to the nature and extent of their disability but also to
form an opinion on the aspect of eligibility as required under the
[2023:RJ-JP:39699-DB] (39 of 50) [SAW-683/2023]
guidelines in Appendix "H-1". That is what has been done in the
case of both the appellants. In both the cases, on the basis of two
different remarks, appellants have been found ineligible to pursue
the medical course.
40. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Anmol assailed
the correctness of the certificate issued by the Assessment Board
mainly on the basis that the certificate of disability did not contain
any observation and medical opinion in respect of the locomotor
disability in regard to "both hands intact with intact sensation,
sufficient strength and range of motion". Therefore, it is submitted
that inference only from the conclusion remarks and reasons could
not be drawn and that the experts must properly examine the
appellants in respect of locomotor disability with regard to the
aforesaid aspect of requirement of both hands intact with intact
sensation, sufficient strength and range of motion.
We are unable to accept this submission. The certificate of
disability issued in respect of the appellant is based on the
examination of the appellant-Anmol by as many as three experts.
The opinion making process need not be detailed nor is the
requirement of law. In compliance of the directions issued by this
Court, respondent-Union of India has produced before us the
papers containing examination of appellant-Anmol which
contained various observations, which culminated in the issuance
of certificate. The experts made several observations in those
examination papers and then concluded that the appellant is not
[2023:RJ-JP:39699-DB] (40 of 50) [SAW-683/2023]
eligible to pursue the medical course. The total percentage of
disability has also been found to be 81%. The x-ray report has
also been attached.
Reference has been made to various provisions contained in
the Rights of Persons with Disability Rules, 2017 particularly Rule
2(a), 2(b), 2(c), Rules of 2017, Rules of 2018 and various formats
referable to these Rules to submit that the certificate is not strictly
in accordance with the prescription given in this form. In our
opinion, once the opinion of the experts that the appellant-Anmol
is not eligible on account of the remarks contained in certificate
which itself is based on medical examination of body of experts,
the decision of the respondents to hold Anmol ineligible cannot be
faulted on such grounds.
41. Minute examination by experts in the field of medical science
and its opinion regarding ineligibility with reference to specified
conditions of eligibility contained in Schedule "H-1" of notification
dated 13.05.2019, being opinion of experts, could not be
interfered by this Court by sitting over the same as an appellate
authority for the reasons that this Court is not expert in the field.
42. As far as the other candidate Aanchal Sharma is concerned,
it is found that Aanchal has been declared ineligible to pursue the
medical course as the Board found her suffering from a particular
type of disability known as "ERBs PALSY RIGHT UPPER LIMB"
which was found in the right upper limb. The appellant has not
challenged this observation and the experts opinion claiming that
[2023:RJ-JP:39699-DB] (41 of 50) [SAW-683/2023]
she did not suffer from this disease at all. In fact, the certificates
issued, which were in her favour, by the State authority prior to
she being subjected to examination by DAB also clearly stated
Aanchal suffering from "ERBs PALSY RIGHT UPPER LIMB".
Irrespective of the quantification of disability being less than a
particular limit i.e. 80% and more than 40% so as to make
appellant eligible to claim reservation, the aspect of eligibility is a
matter for examination by the DAB. The certificate apparently
shows that on account of appellant-Aanchal having been found
suffering with disability of the nature "ERBs PALSY RIGHT UPPER
LIMB", she has not been found eligible as the essential condition of
eligibility of person suffering with locomotor disability with both
hands intact, with intact sensation, sufficient strength and range
of motion is not fulfilled.
43. During the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing
for NMC placed for perusal of this Court an authentic text book
"Apley & Solomon's System of Orthopaedics and Trauma,
Tenth Edition (Edited by Ashley Blom, David Warwick,
Michael R. Whitehouse)" detailing the nature of disability in
those suffering from ERBs PALSY RIGHT UPPER LIMB. In the said
authentic text book, in Section 1, at page 290, following is
explained regarding nature of disability where a person is suffering
from ERBs Palsy Right Upper Limb:
"OBSTETRICAL BRACHIAL PLEXUS PALSY
Obstetrical palsy is caused by excessive traction on the brachial
plexus during childbirth, for example by pulling the baby's head
[2023:RJ-JP:39699-DB] (42 of 50) [SAW-683/2023]
away from the shoulder or by exerting traction with the baby's
arm in abduction. The incidence in the United Kingdom is around
1 in 2300 live births. Babies of diabetic mothers or unrecognized
large-for-dates babies are at risk. Classically three patterns of
injury were described: (1) upper root injury (Erb's palsy),
typically in overweight babies with shoulder dystocia at delivery;
(2) lower root injury (Klumpke's palsy), usually after breech
delivery of smaller babies; (3) total plexus injury.
In practice, the injury is a spectrum of brachial plexus injury
with the upper nerve roots being injured in the majority of cases.
Isolated injury to the C8/T1 is very rare. Erb's palsy is now
synonymous with obstetric brachial plexus injury for parents and
patient groups.
Narakas classified the injury for babies delivered with a
cephalic presentation:
Group 1 C5/C6
Group 2 C5/C6/C7
Group 3 Entire plexus involved
Group 4 Entire plexus with Horner's sign
Clinical features
The diagnosis is usually obvious at birth: after a difficult delivery
the baby has a floppy or flail arm. Further examination a day or
two later will define the type of brachial plexus injury.
Erb's palsy is caused by injury of C5, C6 and (sometimes)
C7. The abductors and external rotators of the shoulder and the
supinators are paralysed. The arm is held to the side, internally
rotated and pronated (Figure 11.12a). There may also be loss of
finger extension. Sensation cannot be tested in a baby.
Klumpke's palsy is due to injury of C8 and T1 (Figure
11.12b). The baby lies with the arm supinated and the elbow
flexed; there is loss of intrinsic muscle power in the hand.
Reflexes are absent and there may be a unilateral Horner's
syndrome.
With a total plexus injury the baby's arm is flail and pale; all
finger muscles are paralysed and there may also be vasomotor
impairment and a unilateral Horner's syndrome.
In Narakas group 1 injuries of C5, C6 the abductors and
external rotators of the shoulder and the supinators are
paralysed. The arm is held to the side, internally rotated and
pronated. The elbow is extended.
In Narakas Group 2 the wrist and digital extensors are also
paralysed, with weak or absent triceps function. The baby
presents with a clenched fist.
[2023:RJ-JP:39699-DB] (43 of 50) [SAW-683/2023]
In Group 3 injuries there is flaccid paralysis. Finger flexion is
usually the first movement seen to recover.
In Group 4 injuries flaccid paralysis is accompanied by a
Horner's sign. Note that the sympathetic outflow in babies also
encompasses C8 as well as T1, unlike that in adults.
X-rays should be obtained to exclude fractures of the
shoulder or clavicle (which are not uncommon and which can be
mistaken for obstetrical palsy)."
44. If we look into the aforesaid description of the nature of
ERBs PALSY RIGHT UPPER LIMB, this is clearly referable to the
aspects of eligibility that both hands intact with intact sensation,
sufficient strength and range of motion are essential to be
considered in medical course. The experts in the Assessment
Board examined appellant-Aanchal and having found her suffering
from "ERBs PALSY RIGHT UPPER LIMB" located in the right upper
limb, she was declared ineligible. Therefore, there is clear co-
relation between the nature of disability and essential eligibility
condition. The original examination papers regarding examination
of appellant-Aanchal were also called. It contained certain
observations made by the experts on various aspects relating to
the nature and extent of disability of "ERBs PALSY RIGHT UPPER
LIMB". As a result of these observations, noted during medical
examination of the appellant-Aanchal Sharma, that the expert
opined that essential condition of both hands intact with intact
sensation, sufficient strength and range of motion is not fulfilled
which resulted in declaration of ineligibility. The opinion has been
formed by the body of experts and there is no allegation of
[2023:RJ-JP:39699-DB] (44 of 50) [SAW-683/2023]
malafide against the experts. Therefore, the argument that since
the extent of locomotor disability was within the range of 40% to
80%, therefore, the appellant-Aanchal Sharma should be declared
as eligible cannot be accepted and is, therefore, rejected.
45. It is not a case where though both the appellants have been
found eligible on all other aspects, for the purpose of quantifying
the disability, the experts have not carried out any examination or
that the certificate of disability did not give details, in which event,
this Court might have directed the respondents to undertake fresh
medical examination. However, once the opinion of the experts on
the aspect of eligibility is found to be just and proper, it is not
permissible under the law to undertake another round of exercise
of scrutiny by issuing any direction to the respondents.
46. The submission that as the certificate of disability issued by
the State authorities and the certificate of disability issued by the
DAB under the scheme of Regulations of 1997 as amended from
time to time are at variance, therefore, in all such cases fresh
medical examination should be ordered, is not acceptable. The
percentage of locomotor disability and other kind of disability
certified by the DAB may have slight variation but as far as the
aspect of eligibility is concerned, this was not required to be
examined nor certified by the State authorities issuing disability
certificate under the provisions of the Act of 2016 read with the
Rules framed thereunder but was to be examined only by the DAB
under the scheme of assessment of eligibility of persons with
[2023:RJ-JP:39699-DB] (45 of 50) [SAW-683/2023]
disability under the Regulations of 1997 as amended vide
notification dated 13.05.2019 under the statutory guidelines
specified in schedule Appendix "H-1", hence, there is no question
of any variance on this aspect.
47. Learned counsel appearing for the National Medical Council
has sited at the bar several decisions including the decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidhi Himmat Kataria
(supra) and various High Courts' judgments to convince this Court
that the writ Court cannot not sit over the experts opinion as an
appellate authority. Once the examination and assessment of
disability and eligibility have been duly examined by the body of
experts and there are no allegations of malafide, if no case of
statutory violation is made out nor any case of unfair treatment is
made out, the opinion of experts could not be interfered with. The
submission has considerable force worth acceptance.
48. Learned counsel for the respective appellants have relied
upon several decisions, some of them are interim orders.
49. In case of Purswani Ashutosh (minor) Vs Union of India &
Ors. (supra), the question which arose for consideration was
whether a person with benchmark disability of low vision, within
the meaning of Section 2(r) read with Clause 1(B) of the Schedule
of the Act of 2016, can be denied the benefit of reservation for
admission to MBBS medical course. The aforesaid decision was
rendered in the light of the then prevailing statutory scheme. By
that time, the amendments in the Regulations of 1997 vide
[2023:RJ-JP:39699-DB] (46 of 50) [SAW-683/2023]
notification dated 04.02.2019 and 13.05.2019 had not come. It
was found that the committee of the experts opined that the
vision disability of the petitioner therein was within the benchmark
of Disability Act, yet, the petitioner therein was not found suitable
to undertake the MBBS course, as per the MCI requirements and
guidelines, without disclosing the exact reason for forming the
opinion that the petitioner therein was not fit for the MBBS course.
It was found that the recommendation of the Committee were
awaiting consideration of the Central Government. The legal
position obtaining as on that day was taken note of that the
Medical Education Regulation framed under Section 33 of the
Medical Council Act, 1956 have statutory force and are binding on
the Medical Council of India and that the opinion of experts cannot
override Medical Education Regulations. Having noted that the
regulations have not yet been amended by the MCI in the light of
the recommendations made by the Committee of experts and the
decision taken at the Secretariat level and that no amendment in
2016 Act or in the Regulations issued by the MCI have been made
so far, decision was rendered in favour of the petitioner therein.
Therefore, the aforesaid decision is distinguishable because now
specific regulations by way of amendment vide notification dated
04.02.2019 and 13.05.2019 have been made in Graduate Medical
Education Regulations, 1997, incorporating the experts report in
the statutory scheme.
[2023:RJ-JP:39699-DB] (47 of 50) [SAW-683/2023]
50. Reliance placed on the decision in the case of Vidhi Himmat
Katariya (supra) is misplaced in law and facts, as already noted
herein above, the principle laid down in the said decision is that
when the experts in the field have opined against the petitioner,
the Court would not be justified in sitting over as an appellate
authority against the opinion formed by the medical board more
particularly when there are no allegations of malafide. The writ
petition was dismissed rejecting the contention of the petitioner
with regard to the correctness and validity of the examination.
51. In the case of Parmod Vs Union of India & Ors., correctness
of refusal to grant admission, was examined in view of
recommendations given by the Medical Council of India. The
aforesaid decision was rendered in light of the judgment in the
case of Purswani Ashutosh (minor) (supra) when statutory
prescription with regard to eligibility was not contained in the MCI
Regulations of 1997.
52. Reliance placed on the decision in the case of Raghav
Agrawal Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
9483/2017] is misplaced on facts. On facts, the Court was inclined
to obtain another report by subjecting the petitioner therein to
fresh medical examination. It was found that the petitioner might
have difficulty in carrying out fine precision work although he is
able to carry out gross functions with certain limits. The Court
requested the Board of experts to explain the impediment for the
petitioner to undertake MBBS course. Taking into consideration the
[2023:RJ-JP:39699-DB] (48 of 50) [SAW-683/2023]
opinion of the Board, it was concluded that though the petitioner
therein was not physically fit to undergo MBBS course, there are
several subjects where surgical precision is not required. On such
consideration, relief was granted.
53. In the case of Ms. Geetika Tanwar Vs State of Rajasthan &
Ors. [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15318/2017], on the basis of the
report obtained, the petitioner therein was directed to be granted
admission. The aforesaid decision purely turned on facts.
54. In case of Dashrath Kumar Kuldeep Vs Rajasthan University
of Health Sciences & Anr. [D.B. Civil Special Appeal Writ No.
463/2017], challenge to cancellation of admission was based on
the ground that opinion of medical board that the candidate did
not fulfill the criteria for admission in physical parameters due to
physical impairment of more than 40% in both upper and both
lower limbs, it was noted that in the examination, the disablement
of the candidate was found to be more than 40% in both upper
and lower limbs. Taking into consideration the then existing State
policy and grant of benefit of reservation and on facts it was found
that the petitioner therein was not entitled to admission. On
appeal being filed, it was noted that in view of the definition of
Persons with Disability under Section 2(t) of the Act of 2016 as
also Section 2(i) which defines Disability and further noting
Section 39 of the Act, the disability of the upper limb could not be
made a basis to deny benefit of reservation.
[2023:RJ-JP:39699-DB] (49 of 50) [SAW-683/2023]
55. In the case of Manohar Lal Swami Vs The State of Rajasthan
& Ors.[D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11241/2019], validity of
Regulations on Graduate Medical Education (Amendment), 2019
with Appendix-"H" promulgated vide notification dated
04.02.2019, whereby, benefits of locomotor disability had been
extended to lower limbs, was challenged as ultravires Section 36
of the Act of 2016 as also Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of
India. The validity of the amendments was upheld and challenge
to the same was repelled. On facts, the case of the petitioner
therein was quite different. Denying grant of benefit of reservation
in admission on the basis of medical examination that the
petitioner therein possess less than the benchmark disability and
ineligibility to pursue MBBS course as he does not possess
minimum functional abilities to perform skills required of a medical
graduate such as basic life saving as well as operative intervention
etc, no relief was granted.
56. In the case of State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. Vs. J. Vibin & Anr.
[W.A. (MD) No. 1481/2018], challenge was made to the
assessment made by the Disability Assessment Board declaring
the candidate ineligible. That judgment was delivered prior to
amendment vide notification dated 13.05.2019. It was found that
the notification issued by the MCI would have only prospective
operation and could not be given effect retrospectively. On this
consideration, it was held that the candidate could not be held
[2023:RJ-JP:39699-DB] (50 of 50) [SAW-683/2023]
ineligible by applying a notification which was issued subsequent
to the admission.
57. Reliance has also been placed on the decision in the case of
Vinay Kumar Mali (supra) and Mukul Vairagi (supra) which turned
on their own facts and are distinguishable.
58. In view of the above consideration and upshot of discussion,
we are unable to interfere with the opinion rendered by the
Disability Assessment Boards with regard to declaration of
ineligibility of the two appellants herein. Consequently, we do not
find any ground to interfere and, therefore, no relief can be
granted to the two appellants. The order passed by the learned
Single Judge does not call for interference.
59. Papers relating to examination of the two appellants
submitted in sealed covers to this Court are returned back to the
counsel for Union of India.
60. Appeals are consequently dismissed.
61. No order as to costs.
(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ
JayeshSoni/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
