Dismissed

Shashi Kumari Daughter of Shri Sanjeev Kumar v. Union of India

Rajasthan HC29 Aug 2019CW/12333/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed a writ petition filed by a candidate with a rudimentary thumb challenging her rejection from MBBS admission under the disability quota. The Court held that the inability to use both hands intact rendered her ineligible per medical regulations and dismissed the petition citing laches and reliance on prior precedent.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no admission granted.

Shashi Kumari Daughter of Shri Sanjeev Kumar Vs… — Education and Admissions | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12333/2019

¶3

Shashi Kumari Daughter Of Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Aged About 18 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Chittoa, Tehsil Buhana, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Union Of India, Ministry Of Human Resource Department, Govt. Secretariat, New Delhi, Through Its Secretary.

¶7

Director General Of National Testing Agency, Address Iitk Out Reach Centre, C-20, 1-A/r, Block Phase-Ii, Industrial Area, Sector-62, Noida, Uttar Pradesh.

¶8

Medical Council Of India, Through Its Secretary, Pocket 15, Sector-8, Dwarka, New Delhi-110077.

¶9

Senior Director, National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test (UG)-2019, Address IITK Out Reach Centre, C-20, 1-A/r, Block Phase-Ii, Industrial Area, Sector-62, Noida, Uttar Pradesh.

¶10

Chairman, UG Admission Board, NEET-2019 And Principal And Controller, Sms, Medical College And Attached Hospitals Jaipur (Raj.)

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raghu Nandan Sharma with Ms. Komal Giri Goswami For Respondent(s) : Mr. Harshal Tholia for Dr. VB Sharma, AAG Mr. Angad Mirdha

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA

Order

29/08/2019

(2 of 7)

[CW-12333/2019]

The candidature of the petitioner has been rejected as

¶19

in-eligible for admission in a seat in the State quota in MBBS

¶20

Course, 2019 under the persons with disability category (PwD).

¶21

Having appeared in the National Eligibility cum Entrance

¶22

Test (UG) - 2019, the petitioner secured 355 marks. She

¶23

registered for on-line counselling as a PwD and deposited the

¶24

requisite fee. The case of the petitioner is that as per

¶25

Notification dated 4.2.2019 (13.5.2019), she is entitled to avail the benefit of reservation for PwDs on account of suffering 48% disability in her left thumb, but yet is being arbitrarily denied a

¶26

seat in the said category while less meritorious have been admitted. It has been submitted that the disability suffered by the

¶27

petitioner does not render her unfit to use her hands for any

¶28

purpose including the training entailed in the MBBS Course.

¶29

Reply of denial to the assertions in the petition has

¶30

been filed. It has been submitted that the candidature of the

¶31

petitioner for the MBBS Course was rejected as she was suffering

¶32

from disability in her left hand with a rudimentary thumb which

¶33

under Appendix H-1 of the Graduate Medical Education

¶34

(3 of 7)

¶35

[CW-12333/2019]

¶36

Regulations 1997 as amended renders her ineligible for admission

¶37

to the MBBS Course. The aforesaid Appendix H-1 provides that a

¶38

candidate to fall within the specified disability category including locomotor disability must have "both hands in-tact, with intact sensations, sufficient strength and range of motion", which are essential for pursuing a medical course. The petitioner does not satisfy the aforesaid requirement in view of her rudimentary thumb and consequently does not fall within the specified disability relating to locomotor disability and others under Appendix H-1 of the Regulations of 1997 was not eligible for admission into MBBS Course and has rightly been rejected.

¶39

Aside of the lack of merits of the petition, Mr. Harshal

¶40

Tholia submitted that this petition deserves to be dismissed also

¶41

on the ground of laches with the petitioner having approached this

¶42

Court at the fag end of the admission process, which is to be completed by 31st August, 2019 and in respect whereof the first

¶43

and second round of counselling as also the mop up round of

¶44

counselling has been completed as of today. Only the second mop

¶45

up round of counselling at the college level remains. In support of

¶46

(4 of 7)

¶47

[CW-12333/2019]

¶48

the contention that the writ petition is hit by laches and be so

¶49

dismissed, Mr. Harshal Tholia pointed out that the Medical Board of

¶50

the Counselling / Admission Committee, 2019 found the petitioner

¶51

ineligible for admission in the PwD quota on 26.6.2019, yet this petition has been filed on 17.7.2019 notices whereon were issued

¶52

to the respondents only on 14.8.2019. Instead of approaching this

¶53

Court on being held in-eligible on 26.6.2019, the petitioner on her own volition approached the Vardhman Mahaveer Medical College

¶54

(for short, 'VMMC') and Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi on 8.7.2019 for a medical examination, where a duly constituted

¶55

Medical Board on examining her found that she was in-eligible for admission in the quota of PwD as per the obtaining guidelines for

¶56

the purpose issued under the Regulations of 1997.

¶57

Mr. Harshal Tholia finally submitted that the petitioner

¶58

having been found to be in-eligible for being admitted under the

¶59

PwD quota by two Medical Boards, their expert opinion cannot be

¶60

put to challenge in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶61

of India for it is well settled that the Court in the exercise of its

¶62

extraordinary equitable discretionary jurisdiction does not

¶63

(5 of 7)

¶64

[CW-12333/2019]

¶65

interfere with the conclusions based on domain expertise i.e. in

¶66

this case of Medical Experts. It has been submitted that in this

¶67

view of the matter, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶68

Heard. Considered.

¶69

The Medical Council of India has issued Notification

¶70

dated 13th May, 2019 in exercise of powers conferred by Section

¶71

33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (Act of 1956) amending

¶72

the Regulation of 1997. Therein the Board of Governors, in supersession of the Medical Council of India, with the previous sanction of the Central Government brought into operation Appendix H-1 annexed to the aforesaid Notification dated 13th

¶73

May, 2019. The said appendix provides that a person seeking admission into MBBS / Course as a PwD suffering locomotor disability including disabilities specified in clause (a) to (f) would not be eligible to be admitted despite suffering a disability within

¶74

the permissible percentage in the event both his / her hands were

¶75

not intact, with intact sensations, sufficient strength and range of

¶76

motion, which are essential for successfully pursuing a medical

¶77

course. Appendix H-1 is not under challenge before this Court.

¶78

(6 of 7)

¶79

[CW-12333/2019]

¶80

Admittedly the petitioner suffers from a rudimentary

¶81

thumb with a disability range of 48%. The percentage of disability

¶82

range in the instant case is not relevant as the rudimentary

¶83

thumb by itself renders the consequence of both hands of the

¶84

candidate seeking admission into MBBS Course not being intact.

¶85

A similar issue as agitated in this petition arose before

¶86

the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Manohar Lal Swami Versus The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B Civil Writ Petition No.

¶87

11241/2019; decided on 28.8.2019). Therein the petitioner suffered a congenital left upper limb (hand) disability to an extent of 40%. She participated in the NEET Examination, 2019 in the category of OBC / NCL with further sub-category of PwD. Not admitted in the PwD category despite marks higher than the cut

¶88

off in the said category, the petitioner therein challenged Appendix

¶89

H to the Regulations of 1997 (pari-materia to Appendix H-1 as obtaining following the Amendment of 2019) where candidates

¶90

suffering from disability in a hand were being denied admission.

¶91

The Division Bench on detailed consideration negated the

¶92

challenge finding that the absence of the thumb in the left

¶93

(7 of 7)