Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 201 (GAU)

Salma Akhtara v. State of Assam

2004-03-23

RANJAN GOGOI

body2004
JUDGMENT Ranjan Gogoi, J. 1. Heard Mr. Abu Sharif, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P K Mushahary, learned senior Government Advocate, Assam. 2. Though by the time that this Court could take up the writ petition for final consideration, the last date for admission to 1st year MBBS Course in the State was over on 30th September, 2003, the strenuous argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner has persuaded this Court to deal with the matter on its merits and to find out if the contention of the petitioner that she was denied admission arbitrarily, is correct. 3. The petitioner is a physically challenged person with some deformity of the left upper limb. She was an aspirant for a medical seat and she was one of the selected candidates for medical admission on the basis of the Joint Competitive Examination conducted in the months of June/July 2003. The petitioner was placed at SI. No. 9 of the Select List against the quota earmarked for physically disabled candidates. According to the petitioner, she participated in the interview/counselling and thereafter, her case was referred to the Medical Board and a medical examination was conducted. Thereafter, the petitioner was informed that she would not be entitled to admission and as the reasons and grounds for the above decision taken, were not clearly communicated and made known to the petitioner, the petitioner had no option but to institute the present proceeding. 4. In the writ petition; it is averred that the petitioner's physical disability being to the extent of 47%, she should have been granted admission against the quota for physically handicapped candidates. Necessary documents issued by the competent authority showing the extent of physical disability of the petitioner have also been brought on record. Admission having been given to the candidate placed below the petitioner in the Merit List, it is contended that the petitioner was denied admission arbitrarily, and, therefore, this Court should appropriately intervene in the matter. 5. The State has filed its counter affidavit in the case and pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 26.9.2003, the proceedings of the Medical Board which had examined the petitioner, have also been placed before the Court. 5. The State has filed its counter affidavit in the case and pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 26.9.2003, the proceedings of the Medical Board which had examined the petitioner, have also been placed before the Court. The stand taken in the affidavit filed by the respondents as well as in the course of the oral arguments advanced by the learned senior Government advocate may be briefly noted at this stage. According to the respondents, under the guidelines issued by the Medical Council of India, locomotory disability in the upper limb of a candidate disentitles such candidate for admission to the professional medical course. The aforesaid guidelines which have been brought on record by means of the affidavit filed, may be usefully extracted hereunder : - "Among the locomotory disabled the upper limb should be functional and normal as it is required to elicit sign during clinical examination and finer movements are desired for conduct of surgical procedure. Against the feeling and the sensation are important for clinical diagnosis and the treatment and locomotory disabled involving upper limb should be considered not eligible for admission to the professional medical course, The locomotory disabled involving the lower limb is permissible but it should be with the following guidelines." Mr. Mushahary, learned senior Government advocate, Assam has argued that as the Medical Council of India had set the guidelines which make a candidate with locomotory disablement of the upper limb ineligible for medical admission and the report of the Medical Board which examined the petitioner is to the effect that as the petitioner has locomotory disablement of the left upper limb to the extent of 30%, the petitioner could not be granted admission notwithstanding her selection. 6. The arguments advanced on behalf of the rival parties have been duly considered. A reading of the guidelines issued by the Medical Council of India in this regard, which has been extracted hereinabove, would go to show that the Medical Council of India for reasons assigned thought it proper to consider candidates with locomotory disablement involving any of the upper limbs to be ineligible for medical admission. A reading of the guidelines issued by the Medical Council of India in this regard, which has been extracted hereinabove, would go to show that the Medical Council of India for reasons assigned thought it proper to consider candidates with locomotory disablement involving any of the upper limbs to be ineligible for medical admission. The petitioner admittedly has some locomotory disablement of the left upper limb, which has been assessed by the Medical Board at 30%, If the wisdom of the Expert Body in this regard is that such disablement of the upper limb may come in the way of due performance of duties as a medical practitioner, to avoid which situations, the guidelines as noted above, have been issued by Medical Council of India, there would be a little scope for the writ Court to substitute the views of the Expert Body which must be allowed to prevail. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in this writ petition. The writ petition shall stand accordingly dismissed. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed