Alok Sharma, J. - (1.) THE respondents issued a memorandum of examination for admission in the course of B.V.Sc. & A.H. (Session 2014 -15) in the Month of February 2014. The petitioner applied therefore in the quota for specially enabled persons. Was issued the admit card for the examination which he then wrote and obtained provisional over -all rank 601 and provisional category (specially enabled) rank 190. The petitioner vide letter dated 28.8.2014 was called for counselling to the College with all documents including P.H. (Physically handicapped) for verification of documents and medical check up. The petitioner complied and submitted relevant documents including the disability certificate issued in 2011 showing his disability as over 50%. It has been stated that the candidature of the petitioner was however rejected and he was not allotted a seat in the special category (P.H.) despite his merit for the purported reason that the P.H. certificate submitted (of the year 2011) was not three months prior to the submission, as required, and further that his disability indicated in the said certificate was above 50% rendering him ineligible as the requirement with reference to Regulation 7(9) & (10) of Veterinary Council of India (Minimum Standards of Veterinary Education Degree Course -B.V.Sc. & A.H.) Regulation, 2008 (hereinafter 'the Regulation 2008') was below 50% disability.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that albeit the certificate of disability submitted by him indeed pertained to 2011 and evidenced his suffering P.H. of over 50%, yet the petitioner had been operated on 28.8.2014 at Narayan Sewa Sansthan, Udaipur where -upon his disability was substantially reduced to less than 50% and should have been so evident when medically examined on 5.9.2014 when he presented himself for the verification of documents and medical check -up. It has been submitted by the petitioner that he was not medically examined and the respondents mechanically rejected his candidature with reference to the disability certificate dated 27.6.2011 (submitted by himself) recording his disability in the lower limb over 50%. It has been submitted that in the circumstances the petitioner immediately approached the Government Hospital, Sawai Madhopur to obtain an updated disability certificate where -upon the concerned doctor examined him and issued a fresh disability certificate on 8.9.2014 wherein the percentage of his permanent disability was indicated only as over 40%. It has been submitted that however as in terms of the reply to the writ petition it transpired that P.H. certificate pertaining to disability suffered inadmissibility owing to Regulations 7(9)(10) of the Regulations of 2008 requiring a disability certificate being issued by a three Members Medical Board, with two Specialists, the petitioner again approached the Government Hospital, Sawai Madhopur - the district of which the petitioner is a resident and obtained a disability certificate on 2.2.2015 by a Board constituted of three Doctors including two Specialists. This certificate again showed his disability to be more than 40%. It has been submitted that in the circumstances the petitioner is both in the category of specially enabled persons for the purpose of examination conducted by the respondents and meritorious in that category and consequently the respondents be directed to admit the petitioner in the said category to the B.V.Sc. & A.H. Degree Course in academic session 2014 -15. Reply to the petition has been filed. It has been submitted that the petition is deserving of dismissal at the outset in as much as it seeks a writ of mandamus without having first having issued notice for demand for justice addressed to the respondents setting out the circumstances in which the petitioner was allegedly wrongly left out from admission into B.V.Sc. & A.H. Degree Course 2014 -15 in the category of specially enabled persons. It has been submitted that without demand for justice having been issued, a writ of mandamus is liable to be dismissed. It has been further submitted on merits that the petitioner seeking admission in the category of specially enabled persons was not entitled to admission into B.V.Sc. & A.H. Degree Course on the relevant date when he was to submit his P.H. certificate i.e. on 5.9.2014. With reference to Regulation 7(9)(10) Part -III of the Regulations of 2008 issued by the Ministry of Agriculture relevant to the admissions in issue it has been submitted that for a candidate to be entitled to be considered for admission in the category of specially enabled persons a disability certificate not older than three months preceding the date of the submission is to be submitted showing disability inter -alia of less than 50% in the lower limb. It has been submitted that on 5.9.2014 when the petitioner presented himself in terms of the letter dated 22.8.2014 the certificate submitted by the petitioner pertained to 22.6.2011 showing his disability of more than 50% in the lower limb. The petitioner along -with 11 others was examined by the Medical Board and found to suffer the said disability. It has been submitted that immediately subsequent to the rejection of the petitioner's candidature he did not approach the respondents with any allegation of wrong doing including that of his alleged non -examination by the Medical Board. No mala fides have been attributed to the Medical Board constituted by the respondents for evaluation of candidates seeking admission in the category of those specially enabled and there is no reason to believe that the Board's conclusion with regard to the petitioner suffering such disability of more than 50% in the lower limb on 5.9.2014 was arbitrary. And even otherwise having failed to submit a P.H. certificate three months preceding 5.9.2014 as mandated under Regulation 7(9)(10) of the Regulations of 2008, the petitioner was in default himself and cannot make out a case of any wrong doing by the respondents. Counsel has further submitted that the purported certificate of 8.9.2014 submitted along -with the writ petition was also inadmissible as in terms of regulation 7(9)(1) of the Regulations of 2008 it was not issued by the Medical Board at three doctors but by a single Doctor. It has been submitted that thereafter the petitioner got wiser and only in response to the reply filed by the respondents, that the petitioner, in an attempt to buttress his case has produced along -with an additional affidavit a certification dated 2.2.2015 of his disability purported only over 40% by a three Members Medical Board of the Government Hospital, Sawai Madhopur in purported compliance with the provisions of Regulation 7(9)(10) of the Regulations of 2008. Counsel for the respondents submits that the disability certificate of 2nd February 2015 is of no avail having been procured at this belated stage. Further submission is that in any event admission to the College of Veterinary & Animal Science, Bikaner commenced in July 2014 were completed in the Month of September 2014 and in -fact no vacancy now remains. It has been pointed out that studies in the first Semester have also been completed and the examination therefore to be shortly held. In these circumstances it has been prayed that the petition be dismissed.
(3.) HEARD the counsel appearing for the contesting parties, perused the petition, reply, additional affidavit and counter thereto.;