Allowed

Savan Vishoy, v. Commissioner of Entrance Examination

Kerala HC18 Jan 2022WP(C)/823/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a student with 40% visual disability, sought reservation for Medical Course despite guidelines specifying 'more than 40%'. Court held eligibility range is 40-80% and allowed petition directing respondents to grant reservation under PD category.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to grant benefit of reservation under category PD for Medical and non-Medical Courses.

Savan Vishoy, Vs Commissioner of Entrance Examination — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 28TH POUSHA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 823 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SAVAN VISHOY,AGED 19 YEARS
S/O.VISHOY MON JOSEPH, MANJAKUNNEL HOUSE,
MALEKADU COLONY ROAD, UDAYAMPEROOR P.O.,
ERNAKULAM, KERALA-682 307.

¶8

BY ADVS.
LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM
REXY ELIZABETH THOMAS
TOM E. JACOB
ARYA JOSEPH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶11

2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO HEALTH DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

3 MEDICAL BOARD CONSTITUTED FOR KEAM 2021, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011.

¶13

4 NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY UNDER GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION BOARD, POCKET-14, SECTOR-8, DWARAKA NEW DELHI-110010, INDIA

¶14

5 UNDER GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, SECTOR-8, DWARAKA NEW DELHI- 110010, INDIA BY ADVS. ASGI,S.MANU-ADDL R4 & R5 SRI.P.G.PRAMOD, GOVERNMENT PLEADER(GP-50)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶16

18.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C) NO. 823 OF 2022 2

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Dated this the 18^th day of January, 2022

¶20

The petitioner, who is a Student, who has appeared in NEET 2021 for Medical UG examination and who is awarded Rank No.6685 in KEAM Test, has approached this Court seeking to declare that denial of the benefit of reservations for Medical Course given under Column IB of Appendix XXIV(i) (Ext.P3) of KEAM 2021 Prospectus (Ext.P2) to persons having visual disability equal to 40% is unconstitutional.

¶21

The petitioner states that he has a visual disability of

¶22

40%. As per Ext.P2 prospectus, 5% of seats for Medical UG is reserved for persons with disability. The benchmark disability prescribed for making application in the visual disability category is 40%.

¶23

The petitioner states that as per Ext.P3 Appendix with respect to Medical Course, reservation can be given to

¶24

WP(C) NO. 823 OF 2022 3

¶25

persons with visual disability of more than 40%, but can reduce the same below 40% using visual aids. The petitioner is having 40% disability and his reduced disability with visual aids

¶26

is 20%. Since the petitioner is having 40% disability, he is entitled to reservation as per Ext.P2.

¶27

However, the petitioner has not been granted the benefit of reservation for the reason that in Ext.P3 Appendix, the benefit is given only to persons who are having “more than 40% disability” . In short, the respondents have taken a stand that the benefit of reservation cannot be extended to the petitioner, since his disability is equal to 40% and since it is not more than 40%. The petitioner challenges the said stand of the respondents.

¶28

The petitioner would argue that as per Ext.P2, persons who are having a disability equal to 40% or more are entitled for the benefit of reservation. As per Ext.P3, a person above the limit of 40% is not entitled for the benefit of Medical

¶29

Course but will be entitled for the same, if he can reduce the

¶30

WP(C) NO. 823 OF 2022 4

¶31

same below 40% with visual aids. A conjoined reading of Exts.P2 and P3 would show that if a person is having a disability of 40% or more, he is entitled for the reservation, if he

¶32

can reduce the same below 40% with visual aids. The petitioner, therefore, sought to direct the respondents to grant the benefit of reservation under the category (PD) for Medical Course as per Ext.P3.

¶33

The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that the Clause stipulated by the respondents are perfectly in tune with the provisions contained in the Graduate Medical Education Regulations issued by the erstwhile MCI. Therefore, there is no justification in the arguments of the petitioner. The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India also opposed the writ petition controverting the material allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition.

¶34

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India

¶35

WP(C) NO. 823 OF 2022 5

¶36

representing the additional 4^th respondent.

¶37

Ext.P2 Prospectus for admission to Professional Degree Courses, in Clause 5.3 would indicate that generally, candidates who have a minimum of 40% disability alone will be eligible to apply for admission under physically disabled quota. Candidates seeking admission to Medical Courses (except BHMS course) will have to satisfy the eligibility criteria prescribed by the Medical Council of India for “Persons with Disabilities”. The MCI Guideline regarding the admission of students with specified disabilities under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 with respect to admission in Medical Courses except BHMS Course, is produced as Ext.P3.

¶38

A reading of Ext.P3 would show that under Serial No.1, for Locomotor Disability, including specified disabilities, disability range to be eligible for Medical Course and to be eligible for PwD Quota is 40-80% disability. Under the same head, namely Physical Disability, against the disability of Visual Impairment, no different prescription is made. Therefore, it is to

¶39

WP(C) NO. 823 OF 2022 6

¶40

be presumed that for a Visually Impaired person to become eligible for Medical Course and eligible for PwD Quota, the disability range will be 40-80% itself.

¶41

The learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that as per the notes given under the head Visual Impairment and Hearing Impairment, it has been stated that persons with Visual Impairment/Visual Disability of more than 40% may be made eligible to pursue Graduate Medical Education 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. The contention of the respondents is that the notes below B) Visual Impairment and C) Hearing Impairment uses the word “more than 40%” and for that reason, the petitioner who is having only 40% visual disability cannot be considered for admission to medical courses.

¶42

This Court is of the view that such an interpretation cannot be given to the Clause for more than one reason. Under

¶43

WP(C) NO. 823 OF 2022 7

¶44

Clause 5.3 of Ext.P2, the respondents have stated that generally, candidates who have a minimum of 40% disability will be eligible to apply for admission against physically disabled quota. In Ext.P3 Annexure XXIV(i) MCI Guidelines regarding admission of students with specified disabilities under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, with respect to admission in Medical Courses (except BHMS Course), against Column No.1 relating to Physical Disability (which term includes Locomotor Disabilities, Visual Impairment and Hearing Impairment), for a candidate to become eligible for Medical Course and to become eligible for PwD Quota, the disability range is 40-80%. When Annexure XXIV(i) mandates that the disability range is between 40% and 80% for all cases of physical disability, a different yardstick cannot be taken in the case of visually impaired candidates like the petitioner and it cannot be insisted that a person to become eligible for reservation under PwD Quota, one should have more than 40% disability.

¶45

WP(C) NO. 823 OF 2022 8

¶46

The notes given under Clause 1 to the effect that persons with Visual Impairment/visual disability of more than 40% may be made eligible to pursue Graduate Medical Education and may be given reservation, therefore cannot have any impact on the eligibility of the petitioner. Ext.P2 as well as Ext.P3 are unequivocal and Exts. P2 and P3 declare that candidates who have a minimum of 40% disability will be eligible to apply for PwD Quota. Ext.P3 would make it abundantly clear that for a candidate to be eligible for Medical Course and to be eligible for PwD Quota, the disability range is 40-80% disability.

¶47

In such circumstances, this Court is unable to accept the contentions of the respondents that the petitioner is not eligible for PwD Quota for the reason that the petitioner does not have “more than 40%” Visual Impairment.

¶48

In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. There will be a direction to the respondents to grant the benefit of reservation under the category PD to the petitioner for the

¶49

WP(C) NO. 823 OF 2022 9

¶50

Medical Course as well as for the non Medical Courses as per

Ext.P3

SD/-

N.NAGARESH

JUDGE

hmh

WP(C) NO. 823 OF 2022 10

¶57

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 823/2022

¶58

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶59

`Exhibit P1`	`THE COPY OF THE` `DISABILITY (CERT` `ISSUED BY THE ME` `HOSPITAL, ERNAKU`	`CERTIFICATE OF` `IFICATE NO.MB/30/2021)` `DICAL BOARD, GENERAL` `LAM TO THE PETITIONER.`
`Exhibit P2`	`THE RELEVANT EXT` `PROSPECTUS 2021` `FOR MAKING APPLI` `QUOTA FOR PERSON`	`RACT OF THE KEAM` `REGARDING THE GUIDELINES` `CATION IN THE RESERVED` `S WITH DISABILITY (PD).`
`Exhibit P3`	`THE COPY OF THE` `(APPENDIX XXIV(I`	`RELEVANT EXTRACT` `) OF KEAM 2021.`
`Exhibit P4`	`THE COPY OF THE` `NO.CEE/3600/KEAM` `18.09/.2021 ISSU` `TO THE PETITIONE`	`COMMUNICATION` `-2021/TA2 DATED` `ED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT` `R.`
`Exhibit P4 A`	`THE COPY OF THE` `CERTIFICATE ISSU` `ATTACHED ALONG W`	`FORMAT OF DISABILITY` `ED TO THE PETITIONER` `ITH EXHIBIT P4.`
`Exhibit P5`	`THE COPY OF THE` `PETITIONER IN KE` `1ST RESPONDENT.`	`DATA SHEET OF THE` `AM 2021 PUBLISHED BY THE`
`Exhibit P6`	`THE COPY OF THE` `PROSPECTUS OF KE` `2.5 AND CLAUSES`	`RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE` `AM 2021 SHOWING CLAUSES` `2.6, 2.7, 2.8 AND 2.9.`

Savan Vishoy, v. Commissioner of Entrance Examination

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Savan Vishoy, v. Commissioner of Entrance Examination

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aji Kochuparambil Vs Sanjay Kaul

Sofiya.C.a Vs State of Kerala

K.O.George, Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer

A.C.Soman Vs State of Kerala

Vysakh I R Vs State of Kerala

Antex P Joseph Vs the State of Kerala