Judgment :- The writ petitioner challenges the Clause 42(iv) of the Instructions in the prospectus for M.B.B.S./B.D.S. admissions for 2009-10 issued by the second respondent in so far as it relates to the constitution of the Expert Committee for confirming the certificate issued by the District Medical Board and also for direction to admit the petitioner in M.B.B.S. Course in the quota reserved for the physically handicapped persons. 2. The petitioner, who belongs to Most Backward Class, is stated to suffer from 60% locomotor disability, which is stated to have been caused due to an accident that took place when the petitioner was 7 years old, by which his left leg was run over by a jeep, resulting in such permanent disability. The petitioners father is a farmer and the petitioner is the first generation literate in the family. He secured 1048 marks out of 1200 in Higher Secondary Examinations held in April, 2009. He applied for both Medical and Engineering Courses. 2(a). As per the prospectus 3% of seats are reserved for physically disabled candidates and the candidates with disability of 50% to 70% of lower limbs would be considered first and after that, if the seats are still available, then the candidates with disability of 40% to 50% would be chosen and the candidates are to produce a certificate from the District Medical Board regarding the extent of disability. 2(b). As per the terms of prospectus, the said certificate is subject to confirmation during counselling by the Expert Committee constituted by the Directorate of Medical Education. Forty five seats are reserved for handicapped in the Government Medical Colleges. The District Medical Officer, Cuddalore, after examining the petitioner, issued a certificate that he is suffering from 60% disability. 2(c). According to the petitioner he was in 10th place in the rank list of handicapped candidates based on his marks and ability, however, the petitioner was not selected on the basis that the Expert Committee assessed his disability at 25%. According to the petitioner, he was not physically examined and the decision arrived at by the Expert Committee is arbitrary. It is also stated that in Anna University, wherein he attended the counselling for Engineering college admission, the Selection Committee and the Medical Board concurred and accepted the petitioners disability as 60%. 2(d). According to the petitioner, he was not physically examined and the decision arrived at by the Expert Committee is arbitrary. It is also stated that in Anna University, wherein he attended the counselling for Engineering college admission, the Selection Committee and the Medical Board concurred and accepted the petitioners disability as 60%. 2(d). Since the petitioner was not selected for M.B.B.S. course, he filed W.P.No.13809 of 2009 for direction against the second respondent to select him. It was at the time of admission of the writ petition, the certificate issued by the M.B.B.S. Medical Board showing that the petitioner was having 25% disability was furnished and therefore, the said writ petition was dismissed on 27. 2009, against which the petitioner filed a writ appeal in W.A.No.1055 of 2009, which was also dismissed as withdrawn on 30.7.2009. Thereafter, the present writ petition is filed challenging the above said Clause in the prospectus. 3. The said Clause 42(iv) in the prospectus is challenged on various grounds including, that the said Clause is opposed to the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (in short, "the Act"); the Medical Board constituted by the Director of Medical Education cannot sit over the certificate issued by the competent notified authority, viz., the District Board as per the provisions of the said Act; Section 2(t) of the said Act provides that a person with disability will be deemed to be a person suffering from disability not less than 40% as certified by the Medical Authority and the Medical Authority as notified by the Government, as per the Rules framed under the Act, is alone competent to decide the disability. 3(a). It is also the case of the petitioner that the said Clause is opposed to the directions issued by the Medical Council of India. By virtue of the Clause, the avowed object of the above said Act is taken away. It is also stated that against the 45 seats reserved for physically handicapped category, only 34 applications were received from physically handicapped persons and by surrendering the remaining seats to the general pool, the legitimate rights of the persons like, the petitioner are being denied. 4. It is also stated that against the 45 seats reserved for physically handicapped category, only 34 applications were received from physically handicapped persons and by surrendering the remaining seats to the general pool, the legitimate rights of the persons like, the petitioner are being denied. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents it is admitted that the petitioner belongs to Most Backward Class and he applied for M.B.B.S./B.D.S. admission for the year 2009-10 and he secured 170.75 marks as aggregate and his Register number is 10326. According to the respondents, the petitioner applied under physically handicapped category and he was placed in 8975th position in the first phase of counselling and he did not come within the zone of consideration. 4(a). The petitioner was referred to the Medical Board constituted by the Director of Medical Education on the date of counselling as per Clause 42(iv) of the prospectus. As far as physically handicapped persons are concerned, such persons with disability of lower limbs between 50% and 70% shall be considered first and in case such candidates are not available, then candidates with disability of lower limbs between 40% and 50% will be considered. 4(b). The candidates are directed to produce certificate from the District Medical Board in the form prescribed in Annexure-III to the prospectus. The certificate issued by the District Medical Board is subject to confirmation by the Expert Committee constituted by the Director of Medical Education at the time of counselling. Therefore, even the selected candidates have to undergo second Medical examination by the Medical Board constituted by the Director of Medical Education to ascertain the nature of disability. 4(c). According to the respondents, the Committee examined the petitioner and found that the petitioner is having 25% disability and therefore, is not entitled to seek admission under special category as per Clause 42(iv) of the prospectus. It is stated that the remaining seats which were not filled up by the physically handicapped persons have been added to the general pool due to dearth of candidates and allotted to candidates in the general category on merit basis. 4(d). It is the case of the respondents that the Expert Committee assessed the disability as per the WHO guidelines, while the Medical Board has given only the percentage of defects. 4(d). It is the case of the respondents that the Expert Committee assessed the disability as per the WHO guidelines, while the Medical Board has given only the percentage of defects. It is also stated that out of 34 candidates applied under the said physically handicapped category, nine candidates were with upper limb defects and nine candidates were with less than 40% disability while two candidates were with more than 70% disability. 4(e). It is stated that 14 candidates were found to be fit and out of the said 14 candidates four of them were with neurological defects who are fit without progressive disease. It is stated that WHO guidelines are separate for orthopaedic defects and neurological defects. 5. Mrs.Hema Sampath, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the basis for providing 3% seats for physically challenged persons is the provisions of the Act 1/96 and while so, when the Act provides for the District Board to give certificate regarding disability, it is not open to the respondents to supervise the said certificate and any further testing will defeat the provisions of the Act. 5(a). According to her, when certificate is issued by the competent authority, no other person can sit over the validity of the said certificate. She would rely upon the judgement in All Kerala Parents Association Hearing Imp. & another vs. State of Kerala [(2002) 7 Scale 198]. 5(b). As far as the conduct of the petitioner in taking part in selection process as per the contents of prospectus and then challenging the same is concerned, it is her submission that since the case of the petitioner is that the said Clause is opposed to the Central Act, there is no estoppel against the statute. She would rely upon the judgement in Dr.V.Ramalakshmi vs. The Director of Medical Education [ 1997(2) CTC 170 ] apart from the Calcutta High Court Division Bench Judgement in Deputy Secretary (Mart). Department of Health & Family Welfare vs. Sanchita Biswas [AIR 2000 Calcutta 202]. 6. She would rely upon the judgement in Dr.V.Ramalakshmi vs. The Director of Medical Education [ 1997(2) CTC 170 ] apart from the Calcutta High Court Division Bench Judgement in Deputy Secretary (Mart). Department of Health & Family Welfare vs. Sanchita Biswas [AIR 2000 Calcutta 202]. 6. On the other hand, it is the contention of Mr.G.Sankaran, learned Special Government Pleader (Education) that the Selection Committee is entitled to verify the correctness of the certificate issued only for the purpose of giving effect to the purpose of the Act and the benefit conferred under the Act should not be usurped by a person who is not eligible under the Act. 6(a). It is also contended that the prospectus itself has prescribed a format in the Annexure-III, in which the disability certificate has to be given and unless the disability certificate is given in the said format, it is certainly open to the respondents to insist for the examination of the candidates and on examination of the petitioner, it was found that the petitioner was having only 25% disability and therefore, he is not eligible as per terms of the prospectus. 6(b). It is his submission that the issue for admission in Engineering Colleges is totally different from that of Medical colleges. It is also his submission that the prospectus itself has been formulated based on the Medical Council of India Regulations. 7. The prospectus issued for admission to M.B.B.S./B.D.S. course for the year 2009-10, Clause 42(iv) deals with seats reserved for physically handicapped and the said clause is as follows: "42.SPECIAL CATEGORIES: (i) to (iii) xxxxx (iv) SEATS RESERVED FOR PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED: 3% of the total number of seats available in Government/Self Financing Medical/Dental Institutions are reserved for the Physically disabled candidates. The reservation of seats in the first instance, candidates with disability of lower limbs between 50% to 70% shall be considered and in case candidates not available in that category then candidates with disability of lower limbs between 40% to 50% will be considered. The other conditions for admission into MBBS/BDS Course will be applicable as in the case of the general category. The candidates are required to produce a certificate from the District Medical Board of the area concerned constituted for the purpose assessing the nature and the extent of disability in the format prescribed in the Annexure-III. The other conditions for admission into MBBS/BDS Course will be applicable as in the case of the general category. The candidates are required to produce a certificate from the District Medical Board of the area concerned constituted for the purpose assessing the nature and the extent of disability in the format prescribed in the Annexure-III. The Medical Certificate issued by District Medical Board of the area concerned for this purpose is subject to the confirmation of the Expert Committee constituted by the Director of Medical Education at the time of counselling. The Candidate seeking admission under this category should produce the full size photograph exhibiting the deformity. Note: 1. The selected candidates for MBBS/BDS course will be required to undergo second Medical examination by a Medical Board constituted for the purpose by Director of Medical Education to ascertain and confirm the nature and extent of physical disability. 2. Candidates with any other disability other than the locomotor disability of the lower limb will not be considered for admission into MBBS/BDS Course under this Special Category. 3. The decision of the Director of Medical Education in this regard will be final". 8. The disability certificate is stated to be given in the format prescribed in Annexure-III to the prospectus which is as follows: "MEDICAL CERTIFICATE FOR PHYSICALLY DISABLED (Locomotor disability of the lower limbs should be between 40% and 70%) The District Medical Board ...District....certify that we have this .....of .....2009 examined the candidate whose particulars are given below: 1. Name of the Candidate : 2. Fathers Name : 3. Sex : 4. Approximate age : 5. Identification marks : 6. Orthopaedically handicapped 7. Extent of disability(mention the % disability (Upper limit function must be normal) a) 50% to 70% b) 40% to 50% 8. Name of the Candidate : 2. Fathers Name : 3. Sex : 4. Approximate age : 5. Identification marks : 6. Orthopaedically handicapped 7. Extent of disability(mention the % disability (Upper limit function must be normal) a) 50% to 70% b) 40% to 50% 8. Whether the candidate fulfills the followings standard and may be considered for admission to undergo studies in Medical/Dental institutions : (a) Normal Blood Pressure : (b) Mentally normal : (c) No visual and auditory handicaps : (d) No gross speech disorders : (e) Independent in ambulation with or without calipers but without walking aids : (f) Good standing balance with or without calipers but without any support : (g) Hand function within normal limits without any aid : (h) Good control over bowel and bladder : (i) Disease must be non-progressive : (The Medical Board should satisfy for all the criteria mentioned in the foot note are met with before giving the fitness) Signature of the Members Signature of Chairman of the Applicant 1. Medical Board 2. PLACE : Designation : DATE : Office Stamp : FOOT NOTE: 1. Upper limbs should be normal; 2. The above certificate should be issued only by the District Medical Board of the area concerned for the purpose after due physical examination by board. Note: 1) The selected candidates have to undergo second Medical Examination by a Medical Board constituted for the purpose by the Director of Medical Examination to ascertain and confirm the nature and extent of physical disability. 2) Candidates with any other disability other than the locomotor disability of the lower limb will not be considered for admission under this category. 3) The decision of the Director of Medical Education in this regard will be final." 9. According to the petitioner, under Clause 42(iv) of the prospectus, the disability certificate issued by the District Medical Board is subject to confirmation by the Expert Committee constituted by the Director of Medical Education at the time of counselling and the certificate produced by the petitioner shows that he is physically disabled and the said certificate reads as follows:- "CERTIFICATE NO.IV Name:K.KURALARASAN Application No.155950 Medical Certificate for Orthopaedically Physically Challenged (TO BE ISSUED BY DISTRICT MEDICAL BOARD) Certified, that the District Medical Board of Cuddalore (City) have this 28th day of May 2009 examined the candidate whose particulars are given below: 1. Name of the Candidate : Mr.K.Kuralarasan 2. Name of the Candidate : Mr.K.Kuralarasan 2. Fathers Name : Mr.P.Kodilingam 3. Sex : Male 4. Approximate Age : 18 5. Identification Marks : 1. Scar @ 2. Scar @ leg (L) 6. Whether audiologically/ visually handicapped (if yes for either one or both medical certificate/s for fitness from the respective specialist/s to be produced) : 7. Nature of Orthopaedic Handicap :PostTraumaticFootdrop(L) 8. Extent of Permanent disability in percentage :60% 9. Whether the candidate fulfils the following standards and may be considered for admission to undergo studies in Engineering College/Technical Institution : Yes (a) Normal Blood Pressure : Yes (b) Mentally Normal : Yes (c) Independent in ambulation with or without calipers but without any support : Yes (d) Good standing balance with or without calipers but without any support : Yes (e) Hand function within normal limits without any aid : Yes (f) Good control over bowel and bladder : Good (g) Is the disability non-progressive : Yes 10.Whether eligible for consideration under physically challenged quota : Yes 11.Whether the candidate is physically and mentally fit to be considered for admission in Engineering College/ Technical Institution. : Yes xxx xxxxx Signature of the Applicant. Chairman, District Medical Board, G.H.O.H. Cuddalore. Members: 1.xxxx 2.xxxx Date with seal of 28.05.2009 Medical Board. Note: Candidates with permanent physical impairment and above are eligible for consideration under reserved quota." 10. The said certificate has been issued by the Chairman, Medical Board, Government Headquarters Hospital, Cuddalore and signed by two other members on 25. 2009 and the certificate is captioned as Certificate No.IV. In the column relating to extent of permanent disability in percentage it is stated as 60%, while the nature of orthopaedic handicap is stated as post traumatic foot drop (L). Actually, the nature of orthopaedic handicap has not been understandably explained, even though the percentage is stated as 60% and the reading of the certificate shows that the petitioner suffers disability on his left leg due to accident, as stated by him in the affidavit filed. The said certificate produced by the petitioner also states at the footnote that the said permanent physical impediment enables the candidate to be considered under the reserved quota. The said certificate produced by the petitioner also states at the footnote that the said permanent physical impediment enables the candidate to be considered under the reserved quota. The said certificate produced by the petitioner even though contains almost all clauses that are found in the format prescribed in the Annexure-III to the prospectus issued by the respondents, column 7 of the format in the Annexure-III speaks about the extent of disability categorising 50% to 70% as A and 40% to 50% as B. The format in Annexure-III also contemplates a certificate issued by the District Medical Board. The certificate produced by the petitioner is also a certificate issued by the District Medical Board. But, in the format in Annexure-III, there is a footnote saying that the upper limb should be normal. The footnote requires the authorities to conduct the second medical examination by the Board to ascertain and confirm the nature and extent of physical disability. In the format in Annexure-III it is also stated that the candidates with any other disability other than the locomotor disability of the lower limb will not be considered for admission under this category. Of course, on the facts of the presence case, the question of application of second footnote does not arise for consideration. 11. In the circumstance that major portions of the contents of format prescribed in Annexure-III and the certificate produced by the petitioner before the respondents are similar, the question to be considered is, whether the Director of Medical Education can constitute another Board for the purpose of rechecking and in order to verify the certificate produced. 12. The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, in section 33 under Chapter VI relating to Employment, provides for reservation of posts and the same is as follows: "33. 12. The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, in section 33 under Chapter VI relating to Employment, provides for reservation of posts and the same is as follows: "33. Reservation of posts:- Every appropriate Government shall appoint in every establishment such percentage of vacancies not less than three per cent for persons or class of persons with disability of which one per cent each shall be reserved for persons suffering from- (i) blindness or low vision; (ii)hearing impairment; (iii)locomotor disability or cerebral palsy, in the posts identified for each disability: Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any department or establishment, by notification subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section." 13. Section 39 of the said Act compels educational institutions receiving aid from the Government to reserve seats not less than 3% for persons with disabilities. Section 39 is as follows: " 39. All educational institutions to reserve seats for persons with disabilities:- All Government educational institutions and other educational institutions receiving aid from the Government, shall reserve not less than three per cent seats for persons with disabilities." 14. Section 73 of the Act enables the appropriate Government to make Rules. Pursuant to the said powers the Government of Tamil Nadu framed Rules called, Tamil Nadu Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Rules, 2002 notified on 9th August, 2002 in G.O.Ms.No.120, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme. Similarly, the Government of India also notified the Central Rules called, Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Rules, 1996 which came into effect on 312. 1996. 15. Under the Act, in Section 59, the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities appointed as per section 57 is entitled to look into the grievances of the persons with disabilities who are deprived of their rights under the Act and section 59 is as follows: "59. 1996. 15. Under the Act, in Section 59, the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities appointed as per section 57 is entitled to look into the grievances of the persons with disabilities who are deprived of their rights under the Act and section 59 is as follows: "59. Chief Commissioner to look into complaints with respect to deprivation of rights of persons with disabilities:- Without prejudice to the provisions of section 58 the Chief Commissioner may on his own motion or on the application of any aggrieved person or otherwise look into complaints with respect to matters relating to- (a) deprivation of right of persons with disabilities; (b) non-implementation of laws, rules, bye-laws, regulations, executive orders, guidelines or instructions made or issued by the appropriate Governments and the local authorities for the welfare and protection of rights of persons with disabilities, and take up the matter with the appropriate authorities". However, as per section 60 of the Act, the State Government by notification can appoint Commissioners for Persons with Disabilities. 16. The term, disability is defined under section 2(i) of the Act which is as follows: "2 (i) "disability" means- (i) blindness; (ii) low vision; (iii) leprosy cured; (iv) hearing impairment; (v) locomotor disability; (vi) mental retardation; (vii)mental illness; 16(a). The term, locomotor disability is defined in section 2(o) which is as follows: "locomotor disability" means disability of the bones, joints or muscles leading to substantial restriction of the movement of the limbs or any form of cerebral palsy; 16(b). Likewise, the term, medical authority is defined in section 2(p) which is as follows: "medical authority" means any hospital or institution specified for the purposes of this Act by notification by the appropriate Government; 16(c). Under section 2(t) of the Act, with regard to the persons having not less than 40% disability, it is to be certified by the Medical authority and section 2(t) is as follows: " 2(t). "person with disability" means a person suffering from not less than forty per cent of any disability as certified by a medical authority; 17. Under the Central Rules, 1996, Rule 4 contemplates that the authority to give disability certificate is the Medical Board constituted by the State or Central Government and the issuance of such certificate by the Medical Board and the validity of the certificate are dealt with in Rules 4,5 and 6 which are as follows: " 4. Under the Central Rules, 1996, Rule 4 contemplates that the authority to give disability certificate is the Medical Board constituted by the State or Central Government and the issuance of such certificate by the Medical Board and the validity of the certificate are dealt with in Rules 4,5 and 6 which are as follows: " 4. Authorities to give Disability Certificate:- (1) A Disability Certificate shall be issued by a Medical Board duly constituted by the Central and State Government. (2) The State Government may constitute a Medical Board consisting of at least three members out of which at least one shall be a specialist in the particular field for assessing locomotor/visual including low vision/hearing and speech disability, mental retardation and leprosy cured, as the case may be. 5. Reference to Medical Board:- (1) The Medical Board shall after due examination give a permanent Disability Certificate in cases of such permanent disabilities where there are no chances of variation in the degree of disability. (2) The Medical Board shall indicate the period of validity in the certificate, in cases where there is any chance of variation in the degree of disability. (3) No refusal of Disability Certificate shall be made unless an opportunity is given to the applicant of being heard. (4) On representation by the applicant, the Medical Board may review its decision having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case and pass such order in the matter as it thinks fit. 6. Validity of the Certificate: The certificate issued by the Medical Board under Rule 5 shall make a person eligible to apply for facilities, concessions and benefits admissible under schemes of the Governments or Non-Governmental Organisations, subject to such conditions as the Central or the State Government may impose". However, in the Rules framed by the Government of Tamil Nadu in accordance with the powers under section 73(1) of the Central Act, the authority to give disability certificate is defined as Civil Assistant Surgeon who, after examination, is entitled to give certificate on permanent disability where there is no chance of variation in the disability and in case where there is a chance of variation, the same has to be referred to Medical Board as per Rule 5 and the validity of certificate so issued is explained in Rule 6. " 4. " 4. Authorities to give Disability certificate.- The Civil Assistant Surgeon who is specialised in the field of Orthopaedics, Ophthalmology, E.N.T.and Psychiatry as the case may be, shall examine the persons who claim to be handicapped and issue necessary disability certificate. 5. Reference to the Medical Board.- The Civil Assistant Surgeon concerned will, after due examination, give a permanent disability certificate in cases of such permanent disabilities where there are no chances of variation in the degree of disability. Wherever there is any chance of variation in the degree of disability, the Medical Board will decide the validity in the certificate. 6. Validity of the Certificate.- The certificate issued under the above rule will be valid for the whole of the country except the State of Jammu and Kashmir and will make a person eligible to apply for facilities, concessions and benefits admissible under any scheme of Government or Non-Governmental Organisation, subject to such conditions as the Central or the State Government may impose from time to time." 18. As far as the medical education is concerned, the guidelines of the Medical Council of India which has been constituted under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 are binding on all medical institutions. The Medical Council of India has framed regulations called, Regulations of Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) 2009 Part I. By the said amendment which came into effect on 23. 2009, the Medical Council of India has made the following changes: "3. 3% seats of the annual sanctioned intake capacity shall be filled up by candidates with locomotor disability of lower limbs between 50% to 70%. Provided that in case any seat in this 3% quota remains unfilled on account of unavailability of candidates with locomotory disability of lower limbs between 50% to 70% then any such unfilled seat in this 3% quota shall be filled up by persons with locomotory disability of lower limbs between 40% to 50% -before they are included in the annual sanctioned seats for General Category candidates. Provided further that this entire exercise shall be completed by each medical college/institution as per the statutory time schedule for admissions and in no case any admission will be made in the MBBS course after 30th of September". 19. After constitution and notification of the Medical Board as per the State Rules framed under the Act, no other authority is competent to decide about the percentage of disability. 19. After constitution and notification of the Medical Board as per the State Rules framed under the Act, no other authority is competent to decide about the percentage of disability. Even if the Selection Committee, which is bound by the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder by the State Government, apart from the stipulations of conditions by the Medical Council of India being the statutory authority, entertains a doubt about the genuineness of the certificate issued by the authority under the Act, it can only refer such candidate to the notified authority again to verify and not to refer to any other Board that may be constituted by the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee for admission to medical courses is no doubt entitled to select candidates. But, in so far as admission to specified percentage of seats for medically disabled candidates is concerned, the percentage is totally governed by the Central Act, followed by the procedure to be enunciated by the State Rules and inasmuch as the Tamil Nadu State Rules, which are framed as per the Central Act, do not enable the Selection Committee to constitute a Committee of its own for the purpose of verifying the disability certificate, certainly the Committee constituted by the Director of Medical Education to verify the certificate issued by the competent authority under the Act and the Rules made thereunder is not entitled to perform such function. 20. Allowing such expert committee constituted by the Director of Medical Education to oversee or to reject the certificate issued by the notified Medical Board as per the Act would only whittle down the very object of the Act. It is not the case that the Expert Committee appointed by the Director of Medical Education is constituted as a parallel Committee, which can perform the functions of the notified Board as per the Central Act and the Rules made thereunder by the State Government. It is not the case that the Expert Committee appointed by the Director of Medical Education is constituted as a parallel Committee, which can perform the functions of the notified Board as per the Central Act and the Rules made thereunder by the State Government. The nature of disabilities which are permissible for the purpose of medical admission having been laid down by the statutory authority, the Medical Council of India, the selection committee is bound by the directions issued by the Medical Council of India, but, while implementing such directions of the Medical Council of India, the Selection Committee cannot have its own parallel procedure for the purpose of issuance of disability certificate ignoring the certificate issued by the notified Medical Board as per the Central Act and the Rules made thereunder by the State Government. 21. At the risk of repetition, it is to be reiterated that even in case the certificate issued by the notified Medical Board under the Act and the Rules made thereunder by the State Government creates a doubt about its genuineness, it is not for the Expert Committee to verify and check it up and in such contingency, the Selection Committee can only refer the matter to the notified Medical Board under the Act and in that view of the matter, the impugned clause in the prospectus enabling the Selection Committee to have an Expert Committee constituted by the Director of Medical Education for confirming the correctness of the certificate issued by the District Medical Board, which is a notified Board under the Act, cannot be said to be in consonance with the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and the Rules made thereunder by the State Government. 22. It is only in the above said line, the Court of Chief Commissioner for persons with disabilities, constituted under the Central Act, by its order dated 20.2.2008 in Case No.4051/07, while dealing with a case of an individual who was denied admission, directed the matter to be reviewed by the notified Medical Board and take a decision and the relevant portion is as follows: "6. Therefore respondent no.1 is directed to immediately refer the complaint to notified Medical Board and get his disability reviewed and take decision about the eligibility of the complaint, thereafter. Therefore respondent no.1 is directed to immediately refer the complaint to notified Medical Board and get his disability reviewed and take decision about the eligibility of the complaint, thereafter. Action taken report in the matter be submitted by 8th March 2008 to the Court." 23. A similar direction was issued by the Honble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.3859/06 by judgment dated 5. 2006 which is as follows: " Heard both sides. Petitioner T.S.Bindu(minor) has been seeking admission to the medical college for MBBS course. It appears that she has suffering from physical handicap and according to the petitioner she is entitled to get admission on the ground of reservation granted to physically discarded person. On the other hand, counsel for the State submits that the physical disability of the petitioner is on the upper limb of the petitioner and therefore she is not covered by the reservation quota and, therefore, she is not entitled to get admission. In view of the dispute regarding nature of physical disability of the petitioner, we feel that the petitioner should undergo a further medical examination by a medical Board. The petitioner shall appear before the Medical Superintendent of the Government Medical Hospital, Chennai on 15th May, 2006, and he shall take further steps to constitute a Board to examine the petitioner. The respondent-State shall abide by the result of the Medical examination and pass appropriate order regarding her admission within a period of two weeks thereafter. The special leave petition is disposed of accordingly. A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent of the Government Medical Hospital, Chennai". 24. The right of reservation of 3% of seats in Government institutions or educational institutions receiving aid from the Government as per section 39 of the Act has been upheld by the Honble Supreme Court by rejecting the contention of the Government that section 39 of the Act which is in Chapter VI relates to employment, in ALL KERALA PARENTS ASSN.HEARING IMP.& ANR. ..vs.. STATE OF KERALA & ORS [2002 (7) Scale 198] and the relevant portion of the judgment is as follows: " 3. The aforesaid section 39 unequivocally deals with the question of reservation of seats for persons with disabilities in educational institutions of the Government, as well as institutions receiving aid from the Government. The language is clear and unambiguous, which itself indicates the legislative intent. The aforesaid section 39 unequivocally deals with the question of reservation of seats for persons with disabilities in educational institutions of the Government, as well as institutions receiving aid from the Government. The language is clear and unambiguous, which itself indicates the legislative intent. It is well settled that when the language of any statutory provisions is clear and unambiguous, it is not necessary to look for any extrinsic aid to find out the meaning of the statute inasmuch as the language used by the Legislature is the indication of the legislative intent. We fail to understand as to how and on what principles of construction the High Court has given a construction to the provisions of section 39 not only by doing violence to language of section 39, but also re-writing the provisions of section 39. If section 39, as has been construed by the High Court, would be interpreted to mean it relates to employment merely because the provision occurs in the Chapter-VI dealing with employment then the "educational institutions" would have to be interpreted to mean the Government post and the question of receiving aid from the Government would not arise at all. Natural and ordinary meaning of words should not be departed from unless it can be shown that legal context in which the words are used requires a different meaning. We have therefore no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court was wholly in error in construing section 39 of the Act to mean it relates to reservation in Government employment and not in relation to admission of students with disabilities in the Government institutions as well as educational institutions receiving aid from the Government. Further, reservation in Government employment is provided under section 33 of the Act. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgement of the Kerala High Court and hold that section 39 deals with the reservation of seats for persons with disabilities in Government educational institutions as well as educational institutions receiving aid from the Government, and necessary therefore the provisions thereof must be complied with". 25. A Division Bench of this Court in THE SECRETARY, EDUCATIONAL DEPARTMENT, ETC.& OTHERS ..vs.. MASTER J.RAJKUMAR (MINOR) [ 2003 (2) LW 760 ] upheld section 39 of the above said Act as mandatory and not directory in the following words: " 9. Section 39 of the Disabilities Act reads as follows: "39. 25. A Division Bench of this Court in THE SECRETARY, EDUCATIONAL DEPARTMENT, ETC.& OTHERS ..vs.. MASTER J.RAJKUMAR (MINOR) [ 2003 (2) LW 760 ] upheld section 39 of the above said Act as mandatory and not directory in the following words: " 9. Section 39 of the Disabilities Act reads as follows: "39. All educational institutions to reserve seats for persons with disabilities:-All Government educational institutions and other educational institutions receiving aid from the Government, shall reserve not less than three per cent seats for persons with disabilities". A bare reading of the above Section itself would not leave any doubt that it is mandatory and not directory. Further, the very object and intendment in enacting Disabilities Act is to provide equal opportunities to the disabled and a reading of the decision Javed Abidi ..vs.. Union of India (1999) 1 S.C.C.467=1993-3-l.w.617) makes it clear that the said provision is mandatory and not directory". 26. Simply because section 39 has been included in Chapter VI which relates to employment, it cannot be construed that the right granted under section 39 should be relating to service in educational institutions. As long as the terms of section 39 are very clear, which mandate every educational institution receiving aid from the Government to reserve not less than 3% of seats for persons with disability, the same can never be treated as directory and it is not only a constitutional, but also statutory mandate which has been imposed on the respondents to reserve seats for admission. In such view of the matter, while conferring the said mandatory benefits to the persons with disability, the Act and the Rules enable the constitution of notified Medical Board which is the authority to give certificate as to the percentage of disabilities and there cannot be any other authority which can substitute such work and such substitution would not only amount to duplication of work, but also oversee the functions of a statutory authority which is not permissible in law. Even if there is any doubt entertained as stated earlier about such certificate issued by the notified authority, the Selection Committee can only refer the matter once again to the notified authority to verify and examine as to the genuineness of the certificate and simply because the Selection Committee happens to be a medical authority, it cannot substitute its view either by itself or through experts. In such view of the matter, clause 42(iv) in the prospectus is opposed to the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder by the State government and hence, the same is set aside. 27. There is no format given under the Act as well as the Rules made thereunder for a notified Medical Board to identify the percentage of disabilities. In any event, the format prescribed in Annexure III to the prospectus in which the contents of the certificate are sought to be furnished cannot be said to be antithesis to the object of the Act, especially when the contents of the certificate issued by the notified Medical Board, as it is seen in the case of the petitioner and the format prescribed in Annexure III to the prospectus are almost similar except in some respects relating to the verification by the Medical Board and therefore, there is no necessity to interfere with the format given in the Annexure III to the prospectus except the footnote given therein to the effect that the selected candidates have to undergo a second medical examination by a Medical Board constituted for the purpose by the Director of Medical Education to ascertain and confirm the nature of physical disabilities and the said footnote has necessarily to be held to be invalid, and accordingly, it is held invalid. 28. In this case, since the Expert Committee which has no authority to oversee the certificate issued by the notified Medical Board, has found the percentage of disabilities suffered by the petitioner as 25%, considering the fact that the Selection Committee while entertaining such a doubt is entitled to refer the matter once again to the notified Medical Board, the Selection Committee is directed to refer the matter to the notified Medical Board again to ascertain the correctness of the certificate issued by the Medical Board earlier dated 25. 2009 and to take an appropriate decision. 29. 2009 and to take an appropriate decision. 29. The writ petition stands allowed by setting aside the clause 42(iv) of the prospectus for M.B.B.S./B.D.S. Admission for 2009-10 in so far as it relates to the constitution of expert committee to oversee the certificate issued by the District Medical Board and also the clause (footnote) in the Annexure III to the prospectus to that effect, with direction to the second respondent to refer the petitioner to the notified Medical Board under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and the Rules made thereunder, within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and after receiving any such revised certificate from the notified Medical Board, the second respondent shall grant admission to the petitioner for First Year M.B.B.S. course for the year 2009-10, if he is eligible as per the percentage of disabilities stipulated in the prospectus. Till such order is passed, the interim order directing to keep one seat vacant shall continue to be in operation. No costs.