ANANDITEERTH P MUTALIK Vs. UOI AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is physically disabled to the extent of 50% disability, and successfully completed the MBBS course inclusive of the 1-year internship at KIMS Hospital at Hubli, Karnataka. KIMS Hospital at Hubli issued a Certificate dated 04.03.2008 certifying that he suffered from 50% permanent physical disability which was non-progressive. For his admission into the Post Graduate course through All India Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examination (AIPGMEE) conducted by AIIMS, he appeared in the examination on 09.01.2011 and was ranked 14957 in the overall and at serial No. 21 overall in the "physically handicapped" category. He was to appear for counselling on 26.02.2011. In terms of the guidelines in the Prospectus Form for the Physically Disabled Persons, the petitioner appeared before the Disability Assessment Board at Chennai being closest to his home town in Karnataka. The said Board issued a Certificate of Locomotor Disability stating therein that the petitioner was in fact suffering from disability to the extent of 50% and has permanent physical impairment to the above extent. However, at the same time the Board declared the petitioner ineligible for admission in the medical courses as per MCI guidelines. Also, the letter clearly stated that the petitioner was rejected due to the reason that there were no guidelines of the MCI regarding locomotor disability with respect to the upper limbs.

(2.) The present petition is filed with regard to the validity of the declaration of in-eligibility by the Disability Assessment Board, Chennai despite the Board's certification that the petitioner was suffering from 50% locomotor disability, as well as a direction that he be called for counselling in the physically handicapped category in the absence of any guidelines for the locomotor disability for the upper limbs. The petition also challenges the vires of sub-clause (1)(a) and proviso to clause (2)(iv) to Section 9 of the Post Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) Regulation 2009 dated 25.03.2009 of the MCI as ultra vires Section 32 and 39 of the Disabilities Act, 1995.

(3.) The petitioner contends that there is no guideline drafted by the respondent MCI with respect to persons who are disabled from the upper limbs, the petitioner cannot be arbitrarily and unjustly rejected and disentitled from attending the counselling session. Also, the counsel for the parties brought to the attention of the court, the appeal against the decision of the ld. Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No. 6412 of 2010 in the case of Dr. Deval R. Mehta vs. UOI wherein it was categorically held that " .. the Medical Council of India cannot exclude persons with upper limb locomotory disability from admission in the Post Graduate course on the ground that such person cannot elicit sign during clinical examination."