Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondent no. 2 to take admission of the petitioner in the 1st year of M.B.B.S. course for the Sessions 2003-2004 in any of the Medical Colleges of the State of Bihar against the disabled quota seats. 3. It appears that the petitioner, pursuant to an advertisement, appeared in the Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as B.C.E.C.E.) against disabled quota seats to M.B.B.S. course. He appeared in both first and second stage of examinations. Thereafter, the Controller of Examinations, on 20th September, 2003 published a notice in the daily newspaper "Hindustan" giving information about the availability of disabled quota seats and invited applications from those disabled candidates who had appeared in both stage of B.C.E.C.E. and date of counselling was fixed for 23/ 24th September, 2003 at 10 A.M. to 3.00 P.M. in the office of B.C.E.C.E. Pursuant to the notice, the petitioner filled up his application form on 23.9.2003 and the date for holding counselling was fixed on 26.9.2003. Pursuant to the applications, a list of eligible candidates was prepared for holding counselling and the name of the petitioner was included in the list at serial number 4. The petitioner appeared for counselling on the fixed date and produced his testimonials and then he was directed to appear before the Medical Board appointed by the Controller of Examination. The petitioner appeared before the Medical Board where his disability certificate was examined. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that before the Medical Board, the petitioner was asked to write on an application form that he was not eligible for disabled quota and, therefore, he was not depositing his original certificates and the petitioner accordingly made endorsement on the application form and thereafter he was asked to go. It is further submitted by learned counsel that the petitioner has not given anything in writing at his own that he was not eligible for disabled quota rather he was asked to write this and when he was found eligible for counselling there was no reason before the Controller to refuse his admission against disabled quota. It is further submitted by learned counsel that the petitioner has not given anything in writing at his own that he was not eligible for disabled quota rather he was asked to write this and when he was found eligible for counselling there was no reason before the Controller to refuse his admission against disabled quota. Learned counsel further tried to impress upon the court that the petitioner had himself applied for M.B.B.S. course against disabled quota and when he had passed the requisite examination he could not have been disallowed admission in the M.B.B.S. course. In paragraph 12 of the writ application, it is stated that from the disability certificate it would be evident that nature of handicappedness of the petitioner is of post polio deformity of lower limbs (R) C amputation of ring and middle finger (R) and the percentage of handicappedness is 55% of moderate category and as such the petitioners disability is in the category of physically handicapped with the locomotory disorder and, therefore, the petitioner otherwise was medically fit as his upper limbs were fully fit and normal for all practical purposes. 5. Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents nos. 2 and 3, on the contrary, submitted that the nature of disability as post polio deformity of lower limbs (R) C amputation of ring and middle finger (R) with total disability of 55% itself disqualified the petitioner as per the provisions contained in column 3(1) of the advertisement in question and in view of Medical Council of Indias guidelines communicated vide letter no. 11773 dated 14.7.2003 as contained in Annexure B to the counter affidavit. Annexure B to the counter affidavit clearly stipulates that the upper limb should be functional and normal as it is required to elicit sign during clinical examination and finger movements are desired for conduct of surgical procedure. Learned counsel further submitted that the feelings and sensation are important for clinical diagnosis and the treatment and locomotory disabled involving upper limb should be considered not eligible for admission to the medical professional in medical course and in that view of the matter the petitioner was not considered eligible during counselling and he took away his certificates. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a handicapped with total disability of 55% and his upper limbs were found non-functional and abnormal. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a handicapped with total disability of 55% and his upper limbs were found non-functional and abnormal. It further appears from the pleadings of the parties that as per the guidelines of the Medical Council of India as contained in Annexure B to the counter affidavit, the upper limb should be functional and normal as it would require to elicit sign during clinical examination and movement of finger is necessary to conduct surgical procedures. Since the petitioner was disabled he was found to be disabled by 55% by the Medical Board and, therefore, he was found to be not eligible for admission in M.B.B.S. Course in view of the guidelines issued by the Medical Council of India as referred to above. 7. The question that the petitioner was forced to sign on the application form that he wants to withdraw his candidature and the testimonials does not appear to be factually correct in view of the statements made in the counter affidavit. It appears that when the medical board did not find the petitioner fully eligible for admission in medical course on account of his disability as referred to above, he might have asked for return of certificate etc. and necessary endorsement, therefore, was made in the application form. 8. Having heard counsel for the parties and considered the facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that the petitioner was not found eligible by the Medical Board for admission in M.B.B.S. course on account of his 55% disability as upper limbs were found non-functional and abnormal and in usual course he was not capable of clinical diagnosis and to elicit sign during clinical examination. 9. For the reasons aforementioned, therefore, I do not find any merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. 10. No costs.