Guidelines laid down by Expert Body/Agencies Cannot be Interfered with

Manoranjan Deka vs. State of Assam and Ors.

Filed under: Section 2 & 39 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995
Appellant: Manoranjan Deka
Respondent: State of Assam and Ors
Citation: 2005 (2) GLR 317
Court: In the High Court of Gauhati
Judges: D.Biswas and Amitava Roy

Facts

Manoranjan Deka appeared in the Entrance Examination to join the M.B.B.S/Dental Course without indicating that his candidature was for any of the seats reserved for different categories.

After the entrance examination, he wrote a letter to the Director of Medical Education, Assam that his candidature had to be treated as that of a physically handicapped candidate for the purpose of admission against 3% reservation.

When the results came, his name was not there on the merit list under the disability category. Further, Manoranjan sent a notice requesting that he be considered for counseling and interview. He was then called for the same but was denied admission since he had impaired vision, which was a disqualification as per the Medical Council guidelines.

Manoranjan claimed that he was arbitrarily denied admission. Aggrieved, he filed a Writ Petition before the Single Judge, which was dismissed.  Therefore, he filed the present appeal seeking orders for direction to the Medical/Dental Colleges to admit him.

Arguments made on behalf of Manoranjan

It was argued on behalf of Manoranjan that he was suffering from a disability and therefore was entitled to the benefits of reservation under Section 39 of the Persons with Disabilities Act and contended that the act of denial of admission was arbitrary and amounted to discrimination against a disabled person.

Arguments made on behalf of the State

In order to support his case the lawyer on behalf of the State made reference to the Medical Council rules that disqualify persons with visual impairment for admission to medical courses.

Observations of the Court

After examining the medical certificate showing visual impairment in the right eye, the Court observed that in the normal course Manoranjan would have been entitled to benefit under the Act.

However, in view of the directives of the Medical Council, the Court proceeded to examine if a person with visual impairment was entitled to get admission to the medical courses. On examination of the guidelines, it was found that the visually impaired were in fact disqualified.

MCI is the apex body to regulate admission to medical courses and also ensures medical services of excellent quality are provided to people. Therefore, the Court stated that it cannot prescribe any criterion for admission on its own by departing from the guidelines laid down by the MCI.

The Court also referred to several judgments of the Supreme Court before deciding that it could not interfere in the matter and dismissed the appeal.

Sections Referred:

  • Sections 2 & 39 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995

Cases Referred:

  • JAved Abidi vs. Union of India nad Ors., (1999) 1 SCC 467
  • Death of 25 Chained Inmates an Asylum Fire in T. N vs. Union of India and Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 31
  • State of Assam and Ors. vs. Shri Rajeev Dey nad Ors., (1995) 3 GLT
  • Binita Senapati vs. Sate of Assam and Ors., (2001) 3 GLT 195