Reservation in Medical Courses

State of Rajasthan vs. Dr Vijay Kumar Agarwal

Filed under: Section 39 of the Persons with Disabilities Act Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Appellant: The State of Rajasthan and Anr.
Respondent: Dr. Vijay Kumar Agarwal and Anr.
Citation: Manu/RH/0637/2001. Decided on 11.05.2001
Court: In the High Court of Rajasthan (Jaipur Bench)
Judges: V.S. Kokje and K.C. Sharma

Facts

Dr Vijay Kumar Agarwal filed a writ petition against the State of Rajasthan, University of Rajasthan, the Convenor of the Central PG Admission Board and the Principal of the SMS Medical College contending that they had not reserved 3% seats for physically handicapped persons in the pre-postgraduate Entrance Examination for admission to MD/MS/Diploma Courses as required under the Section 39 of the Persons with Disabilities Act.

Arguments on behalf of the State of Rajasthan and the University

The State of Rajasthan contented that the pre-P.G. Examination and P.G. Courses in Medical Sciences were Governed by the Ordinance of the University of Rajasthan; there was no reservation provided to the disabled persons in those Ordinances.

They also said that Section 39 of the Act falls under the chapter related to employment, therefore the State Government and the University of Rajasthan were not obliged to provide reservation to disabled persons. The Judge allowed the petition and directed the University of Rajasthan to admit Dr Agarwal in the P.G. Medical course as a handicapped person. The present appeal was filed against this order.

It was also argued that the state government has already taken a decision to provide reservation for physically handicapped persons for admission to medical courses but that decision would be effective only from the date when the appropriate amendments are made by the university of Rajasthan in its ordinances. Further, the words of the provisions under the Act make it clear that the directions are not mandatory.

Arguments on behalf of Dr Agarwal

It was argued that Section 39 of the Act was a clear mandate to the institutions and there could be no escape from it.

Observations of the Court

While agreeing that the reservation had to be provided by framing rules of admission or amending the existing rules, the Court observed that the directions under Section 39 of the Act were mandatory and could not be ignored.

Further, with the passing of the Act all government and government aided educational institutions were under a legal duty to reserve not less than 3% seats for persons with disabilities. It was observed that it was due to the failure of the University and the State to implement the law that Dr Vijay had to come to Court and for the above reasons dismissed the petition.

Sections Referred:

Top

DS Rashmi Ranjan vs. Chairman, Joint Entrance Examination

Filed under: Sections 2 and 39 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1996
Appellant: D.S.Rashmi Ranjan
Respondent: Chairman, Joint Entrance Examination and Ors
Citation: 97(2004) CLT 264
Court: In the High Court of Orissa
Judges: PK Mohanty and PK Mishra

This case challenges the action of the Chairman of the Joint Entrance Examination for denying admission to a physically handicapped candidate in the M.B.B.S course.

Facts

Rashmi Ranjan took the Joint Entrance Examination for admission to the medical courses for the year 2003. According to him, the admission brochure indicated that 3% seats were reserved in each Government Engineering College in each discipline and one seat in each medical college of the State for physically handicapped candidates.

After satisfying the Medical Board that he was eligible to be categorized as physically handicapped, Rashmi Ranjan took the 2001 test and ranked 11 (in the PH division) and was called for counselling. He appeared before the Board and was selected as a physically handicapped person.

However, he could not get admission as there were only three seats available and his rank was 11. He tried the following year and secured the 8th rank but again did not get admission. In the joint entrance examination in 2003, his rank was 5 and there were 10 seats available for physically handicapped person

He attended the medical board counselling and was surprised to know that his name was not shown in the final selection list. Rashmi Ranjan's said that only after the Medical Board cleared his case, counseling was held and, then, he could not have been refused admission on the ground that he did not come within the category of physically handicapped.

It was also argued on his behalf that he had obtained a Medical Certificate in 1998 from a competent authority in support of his claim that he suffers from congenital disability in his lower limb with 50% disability.

The Chairman denied his allegations and it was contended that as per the terms of the clauses in the information brochure a Medical Board was constituted to examine the physically handicapped candidates.

According to the Board's report, Ranjan had only 20% disability, which was below the required degree of disability of 40% in order to avail concession. According to them he was ranked 5 in the merit list under the reserved category of physically handicapped but he did not fulfill the required degree of disability so his candidature was rejected during the counseling.

The question that was raised was whether Rashmi Ranjan was a physically handicapped candidate and eligible under the reserved category of physically handicapped persons to be admitted to the M.B.B.S course.

Observations of the Court

After examining the relevant provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act, the Court observed that for a person with locomotor disability to avail the benefit of reservation, he would have to have a minimum of 40% disability. In addition, the prospectus also made it clear that the medical standards would have to be met.

The Court also observed that since the Medical Board found him to have 20% disability as against the 40% disability requirement there was no merit in the contention that he had been illegally deprived of the benefit of reservation. The Court felt that there was no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the expert body so the petition was dismissed.

Sections Referred:

  • Section 2 of the Person with Disabilities (Equal opportunities protection of rights and Full participation) Act, 1995

Top

Minor Jayeshkumar Dhanabhai Parmar vs. Dean, BJ Medical Admission Cell, Ahmedabad

Filed Under: Article 226 of Constitution of India, 1950
Appellant: Minor Jayeshkumar Dhanabhai Parmar, through his Guardian and friend
Respondent: Dean, BJ Medical Admission Cell, Ahmedabad
Citation: AIR 2002 Guj. 239
Court: In the High Court of Gujarat
Judges: DM Dharmadhakari and Ravi R Tripathy

Jayeshkumar filed this appeal against the decision of a Medical college in not granting him admission to the MBBS course on grounds of his disability.

Facts

Jayeshkumar was a handicapped person suffering from a permanent locomotor disability with the degree of his disability being at 42%. He successfully completed his XII Board exams in the Science stream.

Thereafter, he applied for admission to the MBBS course to the Dean of B.J. Medical College. His name appeared at the top in the merit list prepared for the reserved seats for people with locomotor disability. He was issued a letter and was asked to appear for an interview.

Jayeshkumar was then directed to report to the Medical Admission Cell, for a physical examination. He was then informed that the Expert Committee consisting of 15 members had found him to be not eligible for admission in the reserved category for individuals with locomotor disability.

He then approached the Gujarat High Court and filed a Writ Petition challenging the decision. Thereafter, the Court issued a notice to the Dean, B.J. College. In response to this, the Dean filed an affidavit-in-reply.

The main contention of Jayesh's lawyer was that even though he had ranked 1st in the merit list in the reserved category for people with locomotor disability he had not been given any reasons for the decision of the Medical Expert Committee.

It was further submitted that he had successfully completed his XII in the science stream, which involved hours of standing. It was also stated that he was capable of walking for long distances. Therefore, the decision of the committee was arbitrary and not binding.

The Dean, B.J. Medical Admission Cell, stated in the counter-affidavit that the committee comprised of 15 experts and their decision was that Jayesh was not suitable for admission to the Medical course.

The Single Judge examined the arguments made by both the parties and concluded that since the experts had taken the decision of not admitting Jayesh, the decision could not be questioned. Accordingly, the Single Judge dismissed the petition. Jayesh then filed this appeal.

Observations of the Court

The Court examined the list submitted by the lawyer on behalf of the college, which contained the name, type and extent of disability and fitness for Medical, Dental and Physio courses. The Court found several candidates who had disability of more than 50% but had been deemed suitable for all 3 categories. Jayesh's column on the other hand did not state the nature of disability.

The Court scrutinized the records of the expert Committee regarding his examination. The lawyer on behalf of the college could produce no such records. The Court also questioned the lawyer as to why Jayesh had not been granted admission when candidates having a disability level more than his had been considered eligible for admission.

The lawyer was unable to answer these questions and was unable to produce any records of the experts committee. The Court also observed that the final list consisted of names of only 3 experts when it had been stated that the committee comprised of 15 experts.

Based on these factors the Court concluded that the experts committee did not inspire any confidence and the conclusions reached by the committee could not be explained through logic. As a result, the appeal was allowed. The judgment and order of the Single Judge was quashed and set aside.

Furthermore, the authorities of the Medical College were directed to consider Jayesh's name for admission on the reserved seat for persons with locomotor disability.

Sections Referred:

Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Case Referred:

Palak Kailashchandra Jain vs. Union of India (2001) 3 Guj LR 299

Top

Dr. Raman Khanna vs. University of Delhi and Ors

Filed Under: Sections 33 and 39 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995
Appellant: Dr. Raman Khanna
Respondent: University of Delhi and Ors.
Citation: 106 (2003) DLT 97
Court: In the High Court of Delhi
Judges: Vikramjit Sen

This case deals with the issue of 3% reservation for persons with disabilities in educational institutions.

Facts

Dr. Raman Khanna was suffering from partial locomotor disability of the upper limbs. He applied for admission to the MBBS Course conducted by the Delhi University and was selected on merit. Thereafter, he graduated and completed one year of internship. He then applied for post-graduate studies where he was denied admission.

He then filed this Petition against the decision of the University of Delhi refusing him admission. His main contention was that since he was physically handicapped he was entitled to reservation according to the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act.

The decision of the Delhi University to reserve only 1% seats for people suffering from disabilities was challenged by him. According to him, the provisions of the Act specify that 3% of the seats have to be reserved for such people but the University of Delhi had failed to do so.

In its defense, the University of Delhi argued that Section 33 of the Act specified the following categories and a 1% reservation had to be made in each of these categories:
  • Visually handicapped
  • Persons suffering from hearing defects
  • Physically handicapped with locomotory disorders.

However, it was contended that the Medical Council of India (MCI), had issued instructions to all medical educational institutions to not grant any reservations to individuals falling under the categories of (i) blindness and low vision and (ii) hearing impairment.

The reason given for this decision was that individuals suffering from such disabilities would not be able to effectively assimilate and absorb medical teaching. It was stated that in accordance with the above-mentioned guidelines, the University Of Delhi had reserved 1% of the posts for candidates suffering from disability of the lower limbs.

The issue of reservation for the physically handicapped students was also taken up. It was contended that the MCI had clearly provided guidelines for the eligibility criteria of candidates suffering from locomotor disability. And according to these guidelines only individuals suffering from a 40% to 60% impairment of lower limbs could be considered for admission to medical educational institutions.

This limit was later changed to 50% to 70% limit. It was argued that the disability suffered by Raman was of the upper limbs and furthermore his impairment was only 40% so he was not eligible for admission to the Postgraduate medical education.

Observations of the Court

The Court looked at the relevant cases and provisions of the Act in order to reach a conclusion regarding this case.

The first question taken up by the Court was whether the reservation of seats for candidates with locomotor disabilities should be 3% or 1%.

In this regards, the Court held that Delhi University had incorrectly reserved only 1% seats for individuals with locomotor disability whereas it should have reserved 3% of the seats since it was not considering the visually disabled and the people suffering from hearing disability for admission to the Medical College. Accordingly, University of Delhi was directed to hold a minimum of 3% seats in reserved category for physically handicapped individuals.

The Court also examined the criterion of reservation established by MCI, which stated that only those suffering from disability of the lower limbs within the range of 50% - 70%, were eligible for admission in a medical educational institution.

According to the Court, Raman was suffering from a disability of upper limbs and had still been able to complete his education in medical sciences and the subsequent internship successfully.

And therefore the MCI should re-examine the eligibility criteria that have been formulated for the physically disabled individuals. The Court held that his disability had not been an issue previously since he had attained admission on open merit.

The Court also looked into the assertion made by the Medical Board that Raman would have to appear before the Medical Board constituted by the Delhi University. It was further stated by the University that if the Medical Board felt that Raman's disability was within the 50% to 70% range then the University would grant admission to him in the post-graduate course of "Community Medicine."

Raman however, refused to comply with these demands and the Court felt that to some extent he was justified in doing so. The Court held that Raman's disability had been certified by a hospital that was especially designated by the Government of NCT for the purpose of assessing the disability level of persons with disabilities. According to the Court the certificate was completely valid and the University of Delhi would have to accept it.

Furthermore, the Court held that since Dr. Raman was the only candidate who had applied under the physically handicapped category and whose certification showed that he was above 40% disability, the MCI and the Delhi University were obliged to reconsider the policy of disqualifying candidate with disability of upper limbs for availing the benefits established in Section 39 of the Act.

The Court also passed judgment for the case of Ms Rekha Tyagi and Mrs. Parul Jhunjhunwala who had not been granted admission because only 1% seats had been reserved for people with disabilities in the MBBS and the BDS undergraduate courses. In relation to this the Delhi University was ordered to grant admission to these two students.

Sections Referred:

Section 33 and 39 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995

Cases Referred:

  • Dr. Preeti Srivastava and Anr. vs. State of MP and Ors. VII (199) SLT 534 =(1999) 7 SCC 120
  • Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India & Ors AIR 1993 SC 477

Top

K. Kiran Kumar vs. Union of India

Filed Under: Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Petitioner: K Kiran Kumar
Respondent: Union of India
Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Citation: 2005 (6) Andhra Law Times Reports 361
Judge: L Narasimha Reddy

This is a Writ Petition challenging the selection procedure for admission into MBBS and BDS Courses adopted by the University of Health Sciences, with respect to the seats reserved for the physically handicapped persons.

Facts

The Government of India had issued instructions that for admission to Medical and Dental courses the benefit of reservations to the physically handicapped should only be given to those persons having handicap to the lower limbs up to 50% - 70%. These instructions were issued on the basis of directions issued by the Medical Council of India.

The University of Health Sciences had constituted a committee of experts to assess the extent of disability of the candidates, in accordance with these instructions of the Government of India. The admissions to the reserved category were to be made after considering the assessment made by the Committee.

Kiran Kumar and some other candidates, all of whom were suffering from some form of locomotor handicap or another, challenged this selection procedure followed by the University. They contended that they had been issued certificates from the concerned District Medical Officers or other Authorities constituted under the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act and claimed that the admissions should be on the basis of these certificates

Observations of the Court

The Court observed that although the Act provided for reservation of seats in educational institutions in favour of physically handicapped persons, the requirements of a course and the parameters of fitness of the candidates to study the course, could not be ignored. The Court observed that the necessities peculiar to a course assume predominance over the requirement of extending social protection to the physically handicapped candidates.

The Court also observed that the circulars issued by the Government of India had not been challenged in the Writ Petition. The Court observed that once the circulars provided that the assessment of physical disability should be carried out by an authority constituted by the University, the certificates issued by other authorities could not be taken into consideration for this purpose.

The Court therefore directed that Kiran and the other petitioner’s handicap should be assessed by the Committee constituted by the University. The Court directed that their cases along with other eligible candidates should be considered against the available seats reserved for the physically handicapped, in accordance with the circulars issued by the Government of India and the Medical Council of India.

Sections Referred:

  • Section 33, and 39 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995

Top

Sh Fahad Ansari vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS)

Filed under: Section 47(2) of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950
Petitioner: Sh Fahad Ansari
Respondent: All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS)
Citation: 109(2004) Delhi Law Times 163
Court: In the High Court of Delhi
Judge: Vikramajit Sen

This is a case filed by Fahad Ansari on being denied admission in the quota reserved for physically handicapped persons.

Facts

Fahad Ansari, a physically handicapped person, had appeared for the admission test for the MBBS course at AIIMS. He obtained 39% marks and was not granted admission to the institute. He approached the Office of Chief Commissioner for persons with disabilities asking for admission to AIIMS.

At the Commissioners office, AIIMS raised the following points in its defense:

  1. That it is an autonomous body and all decisions of the Medical Council of India (MCI) do not automatically apply to it. Any decision regarding admission is taken by the Academic Committee of the Institute.
  2. That there were only 50 seats for MBBS, out of which 7 are reserved for SC, 4 for ST, and 5 for foreign national nominated by the Govt. of India.
  3. As per an earlier decision of the Supreme Court regarding reservation, no notice was served to AIIMS on reservation nor was any appeal filed by anyone. Also as per the guidelines of the MCI with regard to the reservation quota in such cases, the reservation was only in favor of the orthopaedically handicapped persons, and not for visually or hearing impaired persons. Only one seat, every alternate year, was considered reserved as per these guidelines.

Observations of the Court

The Court observed that:

  1. The Supreme Court had recognized the MCI as the statutory authority in all matters relating to medicine in India so AIIMS could not consider itself above or independent of the Council.
  2. Further, the fact that there had been no appeal or that no specific order had been issued to the Institute did not mean that it could ignore other judgements passed by the Supreme Court in similar matters. The law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all Courts within the territory of India. When a judgment is passed in a case it automatically applies to all similar cases and there is no need for each case to be individually appealed for/against.

The Court thereby observed that AIIMS had clearly ignored the statutory provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995.

Further, the practice being followed by AIIMS where individual marks of candidates were not declared and only the results of those who were successful were declared was not justified.

The Court observed that all candidates have a right to know how they fare in an examination. AIIMS was directed to produce the mark sheet of Fahad Ansari at the next hearing. They were also directed that if AIIMS wished to file any Counter Affidavit, they should do so within four weeks of this decision.

Sections Referred:

  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India
  • Section 47(2) of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995

Cases Referred:

  • M/S Shenoy and Co. and others vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Circle II, Bangalore and others, (1985) 2SCC 512
  • M/S Hansa Corporation
  • Rekha Tyagi case
  • All India Parents Association Hearing Impaired vs. State of Kerela.
  • Deputy Secretary of Health vs. Soachita Biswas
  • Chhavi Raj and others vs. The Vice Chancellor and others (Civil Writ 5184/2003 decided on 26.08.2003

Top

Palak Kailashchandra Jain Minor Thro’her Natural Guardian vs. Union of India

Filed under: Art.226 of the Constitution of India
Appellant: Palak Kailashchandra Jain Minor Thro’her Natural Guardian
Respondent: Union of India
Citation: Civil Application No. 7410 Special of 2000, decided on 27.11.2000 (unreported)
Court: In the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad
Judges: D.M. Darmadhikari and M.S. Shah

This petition was filed by Palak against the State of Gujarat and the Chairman of the Centralized Degree Admission Committee for Medicine to provide 3% reservation of seats in favor of physically handicapped students in medical and paramedical courses at the Government Medical College and Government financed institutes.

Facts

Palak was a physically disabled person. Academically, she was a good student and secured 69.6% marks at the Higher Secondary Education. She applied for admission to the first year MBBS course at the Government Medical College and self-financed institutes under the Centralized Admission Scheme for the year 2000-2001.

As there was no reservation for disabled students in medicine and other related courses, she prayed the Court to direct the State Government to provide for 3% reservation of seats for the physically handicapped students in the medical/dental and physiotherapy courses as per Section 39 of the Disabilities Act.

Palak stated that the Chief Commissioner for Disabilities under the Government of India had already issued instructions to the Commissioner for Disabilities in the Social Welfare Department of the State Government informing that 3% reservation was applicable for disabled students in all Government and Government aided educational institutions. Against the decision of not providing reservation in medicine related courses this present petition was filed.

Arguments made on behalf of Palak

It was argued on behalf of Palak that Section 39 of the Disabilities Act contained a clear mandate to the State Government to provide for 3% reservation for physically handicapped persons.

If the medical Council of India requested for the rejection of reservation, it was only recommendatory in nature and hence it did not absolve the State from its liability to comply with the provisions of the Act.

It was always open to the State Government to readjust the percentage of reservation for backward classes, but on the ground that 48% reservation was already made for backward classes, the legislative mandate contained in Section 39 of the Act could not be ignored.

Arguments made on behalf of the State

It was argued on behalf of the State Government that the provisions of Sections 39 for 3% reservation were in the section relating to employment. They further added that if an additional 3% reservation was made, it would take the total to 51%, thereby exceeding the 50% limit stipulated by the Supreme Court.

They also put forth their concern that there was already a reservation policy of 48% that was being followed. Moreover in response to the State Government’s letter dated 16.3.2000, the Medical Council of India had specifically regretted that no reservation for physically handicapped in medical course was permissible under the regulations framed by the Medical Council of India.

Observations of the Court

After hearing the arguments from both the sides, the Court made the following observations:

  • That by providing reservation of 3% seats in engineering and pharmacy the State had accepted the provision of reserving 3% seats for the physically handicapped candidates in educational institutions.
  • The 3% reservation for admission to medical colleges had been accepted in the states like Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra and the Parliament had also given its mandate to provide for reservation in all educational institutions, owned or aided by the Government.

Thus, the Court held that the state government would have to provide the 3% reservation using its discretion by evaluating the degree and nature of the disability in the context of the rigors and demands of the course. Further it was held that merit would play a role when there were more candidates.

The Court also directed the State Government to accommodate Palak by creating one seat, if necessary, and the rest of the seats should be filled from the other applications with the condition that candidate was in a position to undergo the medical course and would be able to work as a physician.

Further directions were also given to the State Government to make the 3% reservation in favor of physically handicapped mandatory.

The petition was therefore allowed.

Cases Referred:

  • State of M.P. vs. Nivedita Jain, AIR 1982 SC 2045
  • State of Assam vs. Kanak Chandra, AIR 1967 SC 884
  • Ajay Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar, (1994) 4 SCC 401

Top