Dismissed

K. Logarajeswaran, v. the Government of Tamilnadu

Madras HC19 Nov 2013WP(MD)/10087/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the rejection of his admission to the MBBS course under the Orthopedically Physically Disabled quota, relying on a disability certificate from May 2012. The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioners failure to produce a certificate obtained within three months of application as mandated by the prospectus justified the rejection.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition and connected Miscellaneous Petition were dismissed. Admission under the Orthopedically Physically Disabled quota was denied.

K. Logarajeswaran, Vs the Government of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.11.2013 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU

¶4

Writ Petition (MD)No.10087 of 2013

¶5

and M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2013

K.Logarajeswaran

.. Petitioner

.vs.

1.The Government of Tamilnadu, rep.by its Secretary, Higher Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600009.

¶10

2.The Chairman, Medical Council of India, M.C.I.Building, Pocket No.14 Sector 8,

¶11

Dwarka Phase-1, New Delhi-110 077.

¶12

3.The Secretary,

¶13

Directorate of Medical Education, Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010.

¶14

4.The Secretary, Selection Committee, Directorate of Medical Education, Kilapuk, Chennai-600 010. .. Respondents

¶15

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to admit the petitioner in the MBBS Course for the year commencing from 2013-14, under the quota of Orthopaedically Physically Disabled, based on the Disability Certificate issued to the petitioner by the District Medical Board, Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, on 24.05.2012.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.Veerakathiravan for Mr.F.Deepak

¶17

For Respondents : Mr.K.Chellapandian, 1, 3 & 4 Addl.Advocate General, assisted by Mr.R.Karthikeyan, Addl.Govt.Pleader.

¶18

For R2 : No appearance

¶19

ORDER

¶20

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges his nonselection for admission to the I-Year MBBS/BDS Course, during the academic year 2013-2014, under the seats reserved for Orthopedically https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Physically Disabled Candidates.

¶21

¶22

2.According to the petitioner, he is Orthopedically Physically disabled and the said disablement is 65%. The grievance of the petitioner is that as per the Prospectus, he should have been given a seat, by treating him as a special category, namely, Orthopedically Physically Disabled.

¶23

3.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents. I have also perused the records, carefully.

¶24

4.The learned Additional Advocate General, though, has raised many grounds before this Court opposing the writ petition, his focus is on Clause 41(3) of the Prospectus, which states that the certificate showing that the candidate is orthopedically physically disabled must have been obtained within three months prior to submitting the application for seeking admission under this category and if the certificate has been obtained earlier, the application would be rejected. Referring to the said Clause, the learned Additional Advocate General would submit that in the case on hand, admittedly, the petitioner had not produced any certificate obtained within three months prior to the date of submission of the application and instead, the petitioner had submitted such a Certificate obtained several months before i.e. on 24.05.2012. It is, for this reason, the claim of the petitioner was rejected, he contended.

¶25

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Certificate obtained once will hold good for ever and the District Medical Board will not, normally, issue more than one certificate.

¶26

6.I have considered the above submissions.

¶27

7.As per Clause 41(3) of the prospectus, a candidate, claiming admission under Orthopedically Physically Disabled category, is required to produce a certificate from the District Medical Board of the area concerned, constituted for the puporse of assessing the nature and extent of the disability. Here, in this case, such a certificate was issued in the year 2012. No such certificate was obtained within three months prior to the date of submission of the application and the consequential selection process.

¶28

8.As pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General, disabilities are of two kinds, namely, progressive and non-progressive. According to the prospectus, the certificate should have been obtained within three months prior to the date of submission of the application. Here, in this case, the petitioner did not obtain such a certificate. I find that the respondents are right in rejecting the claim of the petitioner under Orthopedically Physically Disabled Category. Since the prospectus is the basic document and a candidate should submit his application in conformity with the terms and conditions of the prospectus, at a later point of time, the candidate should not be allowed to argue against the terms and conditions of the prospectus. In view of the same, I find no merit in this writ petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶29

¶30

9.In view of the said conclusion, I do not venture into the other grounds raised in the writ petition, as the same would be only an unnecessary exercise.

¶31

10.In the result, the writ petition fails and accordingly it is dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2013 is also dismissed. Sd/Assistant Registrar(RTI) /TRUE COPY/

¶32

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶33

To 1.The Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600009. 2.The Secretary, Directorate of Medical Education, Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010. 3.The Secretary, Selection Committee, Directorate of Medical Education, Kilapuk, Chennai-600 010. 4.The Chairman, Medical Council of India, M.C.I.Building, Pocket No.14 Sector 8, Dwarka Phase-1, New Delhi-110 077. Order in W.P(MD)No.10087/2013 & MP(MD)No.2 of 2013 Dated:19.11.2013 gb PA/10.12.2013/3P/5C

¶34

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

K. Logarajeswaran, v. the Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Logarajeswaran, v. the Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J.Vellathurai, Vs the Joint Director of School-

T.Valli, Vs the Agriculture College and

G.Manoharan Vs the State

H.Umarsha, Vs the Director

S. Rajkumar Vs the Registrar

M.Annavi Muthu Vs the Chief Engineer