JUDGMENT K.K. BIRLA, J. 1. THIS is a writ petition preferred by Ram Saran Tewari for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Principal Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad (hereinafter referred as the Principal) to give admission to the petitioner in the MBBS course. 2. IN brief the petitioner was a handicapped person having suffered from Polio attack affecting his both the legs. Some posts are reserved for handicapped persons in the Medical Colleges. Once such post is reserved in the Moti Lal Nehru Medical College Allahabad (hereinafter referred as the College). The petitioner appeared in the entrance examination of Combined Pre-medical Test conducted by Rohilkhand University for the year 1987 as a handicaped candidate. Along with his application he had given the required certificate (Annexure-III to the writ petition). The Special Medical Board were constituted in each of the medical colleges for medically examining the persons claiming to be handicapped. The certificate issued by such board alone were to be considered for the eligibility of such candidate. Ram Saran Tewari was successful in the Combined Pre-medical Test examination and was allotted the seat for handicapped in the College. He was asked to and appeared before the Medical Board of this College on 22-9-87. According to the petitioner it was not necessary for him to appear before the Medical Board again. According to his case he was cleared by this Board as well but the Principal was not giving admission on the ground that he was not physically fit. According to the Principal, before admission to the Medical College the successful candidates are required to be medically examined. On Medical examination by the Board the petitioner was found unfit for admission vide certificate (Annexure-IV to the counter affidavit). The medical examination at the time of applying for appearing in the Combined Pre-medical test (hereinafter referred as the first medical examination) and the Medical examination by a particular Medical college in which the successful candidate has to appear (hereinafter referred as the II examination) are two distinct medical examinations and if such candidate is not declared to be medically fit in the II medical examination, he cannot be given admission in that medical college. Parties have exchanged the affidavits, and the petition is being disposed of finally in accordance with the Rules of the Court. 3. Parties have exchanged the affidavits, and the petition is being disposed of finally in accordance with the Rules of the Court. 3. THE short controversy in this case is whether the certificate issued by the special medical board at the time when the application for appearing in the Combined Pre-medical test is made by a handicapped person is final not only with regard to the eligibility of such handicapped person to appear in the test but also with regard to his admission in the particular medical college to which he is allotted. This leads to further consideration whether successful handicapped candidate is again bound to submit to the II medical examination and whether on the certificate given by the II Medical Board he can be refused admission in that medical college.. In order to appreciate this controversy it will be appropriate to (refer) to certain documents and the Callendar of University of Allahabad. 4. ANNEXURE-II to the writ petition is the general information given by the Rohilkhand University, Bareilly which conducted the Combined Pre-medical test 1987. Clause (Chha) relates to the seats reserved for handicapped persons. It provides that such candidates will have to get himself medically examined by the specially constituted board of one of the Government Medical Colleges and its decision shall be final regarding the eligibility for the seat reserved for handicapped persons. It further provides that if any candidate is not declared eligible for appearing under the category of handicapped person and is not in-eligible for appearing as a general candidate, such candidate may appear in the Combined Pre-medical test as a general candidate. This clause is not relevant for the purposes of this case. It further provides, but if in the opinion of the Board the handicap of any candidate is to that extent that he cannot pursue the medical studies, such candidate will not be eligible for appearing in the Combined Pre-medical test. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under this clause the special medical board was to see whether the person was a handicapped and also to see whether he was handicapped to the extent that he was unable to pursue the medical studies. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under this clause the special medical board was to see whether the person was a handicapped and also to see whether he was handicapped to the extent that he was unable to pursue the medical studies. In the case of the petitioner the certificate ANNEXURE-III simply mentions that Ram Saran Tewari (the petitioner) comes under the category of the handicapped and does not say that he is handicapped to that extent that he cannot pursue the medical study. Hence it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the certificate shows that he was not handicapped to that extent as he could have not pursued the medical studies and, therefore, he could not have been refused admission in the college on such ground. On the other hand the contention by the learned counsel for the respondent is that the certificate under clause (Chha) was required only for the purposes of eligibility in the Combined Pre-medical test and had no bearing when such successful candidate was to be admitted in a particular medical college' Para 15 of Chapter XXXVI of the Callander of Allahabad University provides that a selected candidate shall be required to undergo a medical examination by medical board appointed by the Principal of the medical college to which he is allocated and his admission to that college shall be subject to his being found to be physically fit by the Board. It is, therefore, contended on behalf of the respondent that as the petitioner was not so found physically fit by this medical board, he could not be admitted in the college. It is further contended on behalf of the respondent that there was a prescribed form incorporated in the application for appearing in the Combined Pre-medical test itself which was required to be given by a handicapped person. In this prescribed form (Form Annexure-III to the writ petition) what is required to be reported is whether the applicant comes within the category of handicapped or not. It does not provide any clause for reporting whether he is handicapped to such extent that he is unable to pursue the medical study. In this prescribed form (Form Annexure-III to the writ petition) what is required to be reported is whether the applicant comes within the category of handicapped or not. It does not provide any clause for reporting whether he is handicapped to such extent that he is unable to pursue the medical study. It is further contended that therefore the special medical board at the time of first examination did not specifically mention such incapacity in their certificate though at the time of the first examination also it was found that he was unfit for medical studies. 5. THE arguments have been led at length in support of the respective contentions and after consideration we find ample force in the submissions made on behalf of the respondent. 6. IN the prescribed form the certificate required is whether the applicant comes within the category of handicapped for appearing in the Combined Pre-medical test. It does not provide for the opinion on the point whether in the opinion of the board the extent of being handicapped was such as he could have not pursued the medical studies. As pointed earlier this provides in the general information issued to the candidates. Therefore, the special medical board gave its opinion on the point whether the candidate was covered under the category of handicapped or not and not about the extent of his being handicapped. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is as in Annexure-III such extent is not mentioned, therefore, he should be deemed to be fit for pursuing medical studies. IN our opinion in view of the facts given above no such inference can be drawn. The respondent was directed to produce the relevant records as well. The petitioner was first examined on 8-5-87. At the end of the medical examination is an endorsement handicapped but unfit for medical studies, he is not mobile. However the word ' but unfit for medical studies, he is not mobile ' have been struck of. This lends strength to the contention on behalf of the respondent that even at the time of the first medical examination he was found medically unfit for medical studies, but there being no provision for writing it in the printed form and as such this opinion was struck off. This lends strength to the contention on behalf of the respondent that even at the time of the first medical examination he was found medically unfit for medical studies, but there being no provision for writing it in the printed form and as such this opinion was struck off. The special medical board thought that it is to give the certificate only whether the applicant comes within the category of handicapped or not. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the contention raised on behalf of the respondent should be accepted. It may however be pointed that printed form (Annexure-III) does not represent the true intention of the provisions of clause (Chha). As already discussed above it contemplates three categories of persons who might apply for the seat reserved for handicapped. Firstly there may be persons who claimed themselves to be handicapped but are not so in the opinion of the Board. Such candidates if otherwise eligible to appear as a general candidate have been allowed to appear as a general candidate. Secondly there are persons who according to the norms laid down are under the category of the handicapped. Such candidates may appear against the seats reserved for the category of handicapped subject to one exception. That exception is that if he is so handicapped as is unable to pursue the medical studies. Therefore, only those candidates will be eligible to appear under this category in the Combined Pre-medical test who are handicapped but not to the extent that they are unable to pursue the medical studies. The proforma should, therefore, had been so devised that it should give out clearly whether the candidate was handicapped and further whether he was handicapped to the extent or not that he could not pursue the medical studies. This could have very well been done by adding the further words to such effect in the proforma. Unfortunately the whole controversy in the case has arisen on account of this proforma being imperfect and not to be covering the points provided under the aforesaid clause (Chha). 7. IT has next to be considered whether II medical examination was necessary or required in the case of the petitioner. Unfortunately the whole controversy in the case has arisen on account of this proforma being imperfect and not to be covering the points provided under the aforesaid clause (Chha). 7. IT has next to be considered whether II medical examination was necessary or required in the case of the petitioner. As pointed earlier under para 15 of Chapter XXXVI of the Callendar of the University of Allahabad every selected candidate has to undergo a medical examination by a medical board appointed by the principal of that medical college. IT may be pointed that the provision for medical examination of the selected candidates at the time of the admission in the medical colleges has been provided by other medical colleges as well including All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Armed Forces Medical College and Aligarh Muslim University. IT is quite reasonable and proper that before admission to the college, the college satisfies that the candidate is not physically unfit or is not such who should be refused admission on medical grounds. The first medical examination is only for the purposes of eligibility to the Combined Pre-medical test. Second medical examination is for his medical suitability for pursuing his studies in the medical colleges. Subjecting oneself to the first medical examination cannot give him the choice of not subjecting to the second medical examination. There may be cases where a person may be handicapped and otherwise fit for pursuing his studies. But there may also be cases where a person, besides being handicapped may suffer from such infectious disease or other ailment that it may not be desirable in the interest of other students or the college that he should come in contact with the other students or staff. In such cases the college will very well be justified in refusing admission to such candidate though be has undertaken the first medical examination for eligibility as a handicapped person. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the object of both these medical examinations is quite distinct and the first medical examination will not dispense with the submission to the second medical examination. Therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner in this regard cannot be accepted. 8. ANNEXURE-II to the counter affidavit gives the guidelines regarding the medical fitness. Therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner in this regard cannot be accepted. 8. ANNEXURE-II to the counter affidavit gives the guidelines regarding the medical fitness. It interalia provided that so long as the patient is mobile and has the use of his upper limbs and normal hands can be considered for admission. ANNEXURE-V to the counter affidavit is the certificate given by the Orthopaedic Surgeon giving the condition of the petitioner. According to this the petitioner was advised above knee amputations and Bilat. prosthosis fitting by which he may be reasonably mobile and functionally useful. The Orthopaedic Surgeon found that as yet he may not be fully mobile and be able to pursue full course of medical studies. ANNEXURE-IV to the counter affidavit is a certificate given by the Medical Board, according to which there were Bilateral multiple lower limbs deformities and at present he was unfit. Therefore, the Board has found the petitioner unfit to pursue the medical studies. It is on this basis that he was not found physically fit to pursue the studies. The petitioner is a handicapped person and it pains us that inspire of his being successful in the combined pre-medical test he is not being admitted in the college, but for sufficient grounds in our opinion. 9. THE petitioner has filed the certificate dated 10-11-87 of Dr. R. C. Gupta. According to him 'the artificial limbs can be applied to his both lower limbs. His physical condition will improve a lot. These artificial limbs will also help him in persuing his medical studies.' Thus it appears that if the artificial limbs are so applied, it may be that the petitioner may be able to pursue his medical studies. In case it is so done we feel that his case should be sympathetically considered but as the present position is, it cannot be said in our opinion that the refusal to admit him was illegal or unjustified so as to warrant interference by this Court. 10. THE learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the cases of Manjit Kaur v. THE State of Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 1070 and Daya Ram Tripathi v. State of U. P., (?) UP LB and EC 165. Both these cases are totally inapplicable to the facts of the present case. 10. THE learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the cases of Manjit Kaur v. THE State of Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 1070 and Daya Ram Tripathi v. State of U. P., (?) UP LB and EC 165. Both these cases are totally inapplicable to the facts of the present case. We feel that the petitioner could have been avoided the exercise of appearing in the Combined Pre-medical Test and then the agony of the admission being refused and taking resort to this litigation, if the proforma Annexure-II would have taken care of the requirements of clause (Chha) of Annexure-II of the writ petition and it would have specifically provided for the opinion of the Medical Board on the point whether in the case of handicapped candidates, the extent of being handicapped was as such as be was unable to pursue the medical studies. This aspect needs consideration by the authorities so as to avoid such cases in future. 11. IN view of the above discussions the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.