VIMISH JAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a physically handicapped, whose degree of handicapness has been assessed as 40%. He passed 10 + 2 Examination conducted by the Central Board of Education, New Delhi in the year 1989 and secured 59.25 per cent marks. The Director, Health Services, Chandigarh Administration, respondent No. 2 issued an advertisement which appeared in the Tribune of 5/07/1990 notifying that certain seats from the Central Pool of M.B.B.S. Course for the Sessions 1990-91 were reserved for physically handicapped students for selection and nomination in the Course. It came to the notice of the petitioner later on that five seats were reserved for this category. Since the petitioner fulfilled all the conditions of eligibility for admission, he submitted application in the prescribed form. He was medically examined by a Board constituted by respondent No. 2. The said Board certified that the petitioner was suffering from physically handicapness to the extent of 40%. His application was forwarded by Respondent No. 2 i.e. Union Tertitory, Chandigarh to the Director General, Health Services, New Delhi, respondent No.1 to petitioner's dismay, he was denied admission to M.B.B.S. Course and some candidates, who were lower in merit, were admitted to the said Course. He made three representations on 16-5-1989, 16-7-1990 and 19-7-1990 to respondent No. 1 bringing to his notice the irregularities committed by the department in ignoring his claim for the aforesaid Course, but he did not take any action. The petitioner left with no other alternative, approached this Court under Arts.226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking mandamus to the respondents to admit him to the M.B.B.S. Course against one of the five seats reserved for handicapped persons in the Central Pool for the year 1990-91.

(2.) In nut-shell the petitioner's case is that the action of the respondent in making admission to M.B.B.S. Course only on the basis of degree of handicapness is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Mr. Jawahar Lal Gupta, Senior Advocate, appearing with . Mr. Neeraj Jain, Advocate, vehemently argued that merit should have been the criterion for admission to M.B.B.S. Course and the admission on the basis of percentage of handicapness cannot be given being unjust and illegal.