D S RASHMI RANJAN Vs. CHAIRMAN JOINT ENTRANCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner calls in question the action of the opposite parties in not giving him admission to the M.B.B.S. course under the reserved category for physically handicapped.

(2.) THE brief fact of the petitioner's case is that he has passed I.C.S.E., 1998 securing 72 per cent of marks and has passed Higher Secondary Examination in 2000 securing 53% of marks. He took the Joint Entrance Examination for admission to the medical courses for 2003. According to the petitioner, under Clause 2.1.3, of the admission brochure, 3% of the seats in each Government Engineering college in each discipline and one seat in each Government medical college of the State are reserved for physically handicapped candidates. Such physically handicapped candidates are to meet the prescribed medical standard laid down and are to satisfy a Board consisting of Doctors and the chairman, Joint Entrance Examination, 2003 or his representative that they are eligible to be categorized as physically handicapped candidates and capable of undergoing each part of the requirements for Engineering/Architecture/Medical studies. The decision of the Board shall be final and therefore they were not required to submit along with, the application form any medical certificate to the effect that they are physically handicapped. The petitioner took 2001 entrance examination and ranked 11 (PH) and was called to the counselling. The petitioner appeared before the Board and was selected as the physically handicapped person. He deposited the required demand draft, but however, as there were only three seats for physically handicapped candidates and his position was 11 in the merit list, he could not get admission. Similarly, in 2002, the petitioner was in rank 8 and could not get admission. In the Joint Entrance Examination 2003, the petitioner's rank was 5 and 10 seats were available for physically handicapped candidates. He attended the Medical Board on 4.7.2003 and also attended the Counselling on 7.7.2003. But to his utter surprise, he came to learn that his name has not been shown in the final selection list of physically handicapped.

(3.) OPP . party No. 1 has filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations and the claim made by the petitioner. It is their specific case that in terms of Clause 2.1.3, of the Information Brochure, a Medical Board consisting of four eminent doctors was constituted to examine the physically handicapped candidates including the petitioner. According to the report of the Board, the petitioner has 20% disability, which is below the required degree of disability of 40% in order to avail concession/ benefit to the considered for admission in the reserved category meant for physically handicapped persons. According to the opp. parties, the requirement of 40% disability for getting the benefit/concession has been decided by the Government of India, Ministry of Welfare basing on the report of the High Level Committee regarding 'uniform definition of the physically handicapped published by the Government of India in para 1, Section 1, No. 4 2/83 HW III dated 6.8.1986. Each category of handicapped persons have been divided into four groups, like, miled, moderate, severe and profound/total. It is provided that minimum degree of disability is 40% in order to be eligible for any concession/benefit. The petitioner was at rank 5 in the merit list under the reserved category of physically handicapped, but since he did not fulfil the required degree of disability, his candidature was rejected during the counselling. According to these opposite parties in the Information Brochure under the heading 'Important notes' note 19, it is provided that a candidate would not be considered for admission, if he/she failed to substantiate his claim with respect .to reserved category, nativity, date of birth, qualification etc. The ' admissions are to be given to the candidates under the reserved category of physically handicapped but those who are found to be qualified by the Medical Board. The petitioner having been found to be disabled to the extent of 20%, which is below the prescribed requirement, could not be considered under reserved category. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder to which the Opp. party has filed a counter.