Dismissed

Ravinnandana M K v. the National Medical Commission

Karnataka HC20 Sept 2024WP/21731/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, in a writ petition, ordered an expert medical board to assess the petitioner's functional capacity for MBBS admission. Upon finding the petitioner ineligible due to absence of prehensile hand functions despite 80% disability, the court dismissed the petition asking for PwD quota admission.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's petition was dismissed as the expert report found him ineligible to pursue the MBBS course due to lack of functional capacity.

Ravinnandana M K Vs the National Medical Commission — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:38855-DB WP No. 21731 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 21731 OF 2024 (EDN-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

RAVINANDANA M K., AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, S/O KUMARASWAMY M B., R/AT C/O KUMARSWAMY M B., KANAKANAGARA, K.R. NAGAR TOWN, MYSORE DISTRICT 571 602

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY MS. SUVARNA M.L., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PUTTE GOWDA K., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by VASANTHAKUMARY B K Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

THE NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION, POCKET 14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA PHASE 1, NEW DELHI 110 077

¶16

THE KARNATKAA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY, SAMPIGE ROAD, 18^TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALURU 560 012 REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:38855-DB WP No. 21731 of 2024

¶19

THE MEDICAL EXAMINATION COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF THE CANDIDATES CLAIMING RESERVATION UNDER PWD QUOTA, SAMPIGE ROAD, 18^TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU 12, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN

¶20

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES (MEDICAL) M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU 560 001

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. N.K. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. M.N. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R4)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS LEADING TO THE UNDATED LIST OF UG NEET PWD CANDIDATES ELIGIBILITY ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENTS a) QUASH THE IMPUGNED UNDATED LIST OF UG NEET PWD CANDIDATES ELIGIBILITY No. NIL (ANNEXURE-F TO THE WP) ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY ISSUING A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE

¶26

N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:38855-DB WP No. 21731 of 2024

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)

¶31

The petitioner was a student who by filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prayed to set aside the undated list of UG-NEET, PwD candidates eligibility issued by respondent No.2 - the Karnataka Examination Authority (KEA). It was further prayed to direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner under the Persons with Disability (PwD) quota for admission to MBBS course. Also was the prayer to direct the respondents to conduct medical test of the petitioner, in order to assess the degree of physical disability by another independent Medical Board.

¶32

When the petition came up for consideration on 11.09.2024, order was passed by the Court providing for fresh examination of the petitioner, about his functional

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:38855-DB WP No. 21731 of 2024

¶35

disability including for assessment of qualitative aspect of disability.

¶36

The aforesaid order is extracted hereunder, in its relevant part:

¶37

"2. The petitioner aspiring to pursue the medical professional course of MBBS, is a person having orthopedic/locomotor disability to the extent of 75%. It is the case of the petitioner that the limbs of the petitioner are intact to his body and that he has Symbrachydactyly fingers that is missing fingers or cleft hands. The petitioner applied for admission in the quota of persons with disability (PwD).

¶38

Reliance is placed by the petitioner on the notification dated 04.02.2019 issued by the Board of Governors of Medical Council of India which is a notification amending the regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997. Appendix-H of the said notification inter alia provides the guidelines regarding admission of students with 'Specified Disabilities' under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 with respect to admission in MBBS course.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:38855-DB WP No. 21731 of 2024

¶41

3.1 In respect of type of disability which is described as locomotor disability, it is contemplated in Note 4 of the said Appendix-H that persons with less than 40% such disability are eligible for medical course. It is further contemplated that those who have locomotor disability between 40% to 80% are eligible for medical course for PwD quota and those who have more than 80% disability are not eligible for medical course. It is also stated below the note that where both the hands are intact, with intact sensations, sufficient strength and range of motion are essential to be considered for medical course. The sufficient strength and range of motion which are considered essential is a functional part of a person with disability.

¶42

It is the contention of the petitioner inter alia that since the permissible range of disability to be eligible for admission in medical course in PwD quota is between 40% to 80% and that the petitioner has 75% disability as above, he is entitled to be considered for admission.

¶43

4.1 Attention was drawn the to list of UGCET/NEET/VETERINARY Physically Disabled Candidates Provisional Eligibility List-2024 (copy figures at page 36, Annexure-F) in which, the name

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:38855-DB WP No. 21731 of 2024

¶46

of the petitioner figures at Sl.No.92 and the petitioner is treated to be eligible for Engineering and B.Sc nursing course, however, he is not treated eligible for medical course under the persons with disability category.

¶47

4.2 Learned advocate for the respondent-KEA would submit that the petitioner did not appear in the first round of counselling. He submitted that the first round of counseling is already over and the second round of counselling will be starting at any point of time.

¶48

Learned advocate for the respondent-KEA as well as learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that in addition to the extent of physical disability, assessment of functional disability is also necessary.

¶49

6.1 Reliance was placed on the observations of Supreme Court in Bambhaniya Sagar Vasharambhai Vs. Union of India which was Special Leave Petition No.18017 of 2023 as well as the order passed in Writ Petition No.19242 of 2024.

¶50

It is to be noted, at this stage that in Bambhaniya Sagar Vasharambhai (Supra), the Supreme court in the order dated 22.09.2023 observed thus,

¶51

¶52

NC: 2024:KHC:38855-DB WP No. 21731 of 2024

¶53

"The Expert shall also take into account the advance, including recent developments in medical and other sciences, while considering whether such candidates can pursue the medical courses. It is open to the Board to seek examination of the candidates afresh if necessary and also in its report clearly indicate the kind of aid or aids which may be useful to them, which may assist them in effectively participating in the concerned course."

¶54

Admittedly, the case of the petitioner is only quantitatively assessed. Any detailed report by the medical expert is not available so as to assess the disability of the petitioner in terms of functionality and to consider the aspect whether the disability which the petitioner suffers from would impede the course of study in the medicine by the petitioner and discharge of his duties as a medical practitioner upon obtaining the degree. An expert reasoning on this aspect is required to be obtained.

¶55

In light of the totality of the circumstances, while issuing notice as above to the authorities, the Court is inclined to issue interim directions as under,

¶56

¶57

NC: 2024:KHC:38855-DB WP No. 21731 of 2024

¶58

(i) The petitioner shall be made to undergo an additional medical examination.

¶59

(ii) The team of doctors shall specifically assess and evaluate the 75% disability of the petitioner which is an overall disability, specifically in the context of permitting the petitioner to pursue the medical course of MBBS, having regard to the physical requirements needed by the candidate for such course.

¶60

(iii) The team of doctors shall undertake the examination and give detailed report about the functional capacity of the petitioner in the above regard.

¶61

Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to ensure that the Director of the Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital constitutes a team of five doctors. The team of five expert doctors shall examine the case of the petitioner in the light of what is contemplated in the notification."

¶62

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:38855-DB WP No. 21731 of 2024

¶63

Today when the petition came up for consideration,

¶64

learned Additional Government Advocate Mr.Sudev Hegde stated that as per the directions of the Court, the petitioner-student was examined by the Medical Board comprising of five expert Doctors. The examination report dated 19.09.2024 was submitted in a sealed cover. The sealed cover was permitted to be opened in the presence of learned Advocates for both the sides. The report has been submitted to team of Doctors comprising of Dr.Kemparaj T., Medical Superintendent, Bowring and

¶65

Lady Curzon Hospital, Mr.K.G.Gopalakrishna, Associate Professor of Orthopedics, Dr.Krishnamurthy T., Assistant Professor of Orthopedics, Dr.Bharath M.S., Associate Professor of General Medicine and Dr.S.L.Mohan Kumar, Civil Surgeon Department of Orthopedics.

¶66

The expert report recorded the following

¶67

findings:

¶68

"The patient has Bilateral Fused Elbows, Ulnar Hemimelia with absence of carpal bones and Ulnar side 3 digits (ECTRODACTVLY OR Lobster Claw). He

¶69

10 -

¶70

NC: 2024:KHC:38855-DB WP No. 21731 of 2024

¶71

has about 80% disability. However, he has total absence of prehensile functions of hand on both the sides. Hence, he is not eligible to peruse the Medical Course as per the Amendment Notification of MCI34(41)/2019Med/112862 dated: 13.05.2019 guidelines."

¶72

5.1. The above findings clearly shows that the petitioner

¶73

is found to have 80% locomotive disability. It is stated by the team of Expert Doctors that, "however he has total absence of prehensile functions of hand on both the sides". The petitioner is not treated eligible to pursue the medical course as per the expert opinion, which assessed the petitioner for its quantitative and qualitative disability.

¶74

In view of the above, taking the copy of the aforesaid report on record, it has to be held that no relief could be granted to the petitioner, as he is found in expert examination not eligible to pursue the MBBS course.

¶75

11 -

¶76

NC: 2024:KHC:38855-DB WP No. 21731 of 2024

¶77

Petition accordingly stands dismissed.

¶78

Sd/(N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶79

Sd/(K V ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶80

SS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2

Ravinnandana M K v. the National Medical Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravinnandana M K v. the National Medical Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Umapathi S Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.C.Thimmarayappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri a Vijay Kumar Bhandary Vs Smt Kavitha S Mannikeri

Pranav Shastry Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Dharshan P Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Nyamagoudar Y L Vs State of Karnataka