Dismissed

Raj Mukherjee and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

Calcutta HC6 May 2022RVW/57/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed a review application against an order refusing admission to a petitioner in URPwD seats due to conflicting disability certificates. The Court refused to entertain the review citing discrepancies and lack of specific percentage in the petitioner's new reports, while directing the incumbent order in a related writ petition to remain active for medical assessment.

What did the court decide?

Review application RVW 57 of 2022 and CAN 1 of 2022 dismissed without order as to costs. Connected writ petition matters directed to communicate with IPGME&R for a report.

Raj Mukherjee and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors. — Education and Admissions | Calcutta HC (2022)

¶1

06.05.2022 Ct. 5 D/L 8 ab

¶2

RVW 57 of 2022 With IA No. CAN/1/2022 In WPA 3507 of 2022

¶3

Dipayan Roy -Vs- Union of India & Ors.

¶4

Mr. Anindya Bose, Mr. Suman Banerjee, Mr. Diptendu Mondal, Mr. Nikhil Gupta

¶5

... for the reviewer/applicant

¶6

Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharyya, Md. Alauddin Mondal, Mr. Raju Bhattacharyya,

¶7

... for the writ petitioners

¶8

Mr. Indranil Roy, Mr. Sunit Kr. Roy ... for the National Medical Commission Mr. D. N. Maiti ... for the respondent no.4/WBUHS

¶9

Re: RVW 57 of 2022

¶10

This application is for review of an order passed by this Court on 24^th March, 2022 with regard to the petitioner no. 3. By the said order, the prayer of the petitioner no. 3 for admission to the MBBS Course in the URPwD seats at the Government Medical Colleges and Hospitals was refused on the basis of the wide

¶11

¶12

disparity in the reports produced by the petitioner no. 3 (applicant herein). While the Certificate of Disabilities from IPGME&R showed hearing disability of 0%, certificate of Ghatal Sub-Divisional Hospitals showed hearing impairment of 70%. The Court had also come to a finding that the photographs produced by the applicant in the two certificates did not match.

¶13

By an order dated 8^th April, 2022 passed in the present application for review, the IPGME&R was directed to file a report in relation to the findings given by it on 24^th January, 2022 in respect of the applicant. Although the IPGME&R was communicated with the order, it is not represented.

¶14

The applicant has produced a certificate of Midnapore Medical College and Hospital of 25^th November, 2021, which shows that the applicant has moderate degree of hearing loss in the right ear and ‘severe degree’ of hearing loss in the left ear. Another report from the same Hospital indicates that the applicant suffers from moderate degree of hearing loss in the right ear and moderately severe degree of hearing loss in the left ear. There is no indication of any specific percentage of hearing impairment in the certificates of the concerned Hospital.

¶15

After considering the certificates of Midnapore Medical College and Hospital and considering the absence of any specific percentage of hearing

¶16

¶17

impairment in the said reports together with the apparent discrepancy in findings, this Court is not inclined to entertain the application for review.

¶18

The submission made on behalf of the National Medical Commission that the date of admission has already closed on 28^th April, 2022 is taken note of.

¶19

RVW 57 of 2022 and CAN 1 of 2022 are accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.

¶20

Re: WPA 3507 of 2022

¶21

It is submitted by learned counsel for the writ petitioners that two of the petitioners have already been given admission pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 24^th March, 2022 and the writ petition may be disposed of on that basis.

¶22

However, this Court is of the view that since the said order directed the IPGME&R to file a report on the methodology adopted by the said institute on assessing mental disability of the petitioners, the petitioners as well as the National Medical Commission are directed to communicate this order to the IPGME&R. The IPGME&R is directed to file the report within a period of four weeks from today before the Registrar General of this Court.

¶23

¶24

The National Medical Commission or the IPGME&R, as the case may be, shall be at liberty of mentioning before the Court for appropriate orders.

¶25

( Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.)

Raj Mukherjee and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Mukherjee and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lindsay International Private Limited & Ors. Vs Laxmi Niwas Mittal and Ors.

Pratima Samanta Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Asis Kumar Khanra Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Shyama Pada Bhandari Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Nabab Shaikh Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Bappi Mali Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.