ORDER :- The petitioner appeared in the common entrance examination for admission into the I Year of M.B.B.S. Course held for the academic year 2009-10. She was awarded 68 marks and placed at 13877th rank. She had infirmity to her lower limbs, ever since her birth. 3% seats are reserved in favour of physically challenged candidates in the M.B.B.S. Course. The extent of disability is to be certified by the Medical Board (for short 'the Board'), constituted by the competent authority. It is only the candidates, that have disability between 40% and 70%, as regards locomotor disorder of lower limbs, that are eligible under the category. 2. The petitioner presented her claim under that category, stating that she suffered disability to the extent of 50%. The certificate issued by the Board, of Government Hospital was enclosed. As against 86 seats, that are reserved for physically handicapped category students, only 46 candidates appeared before the Board, constituted for that purpose. The Board, however, cleared only 15 candidates. The petitioner was not selected by the Board. Hence, this writ petition. 3. The petitioner contends that the evaluation made by the Board is not objective, and it is not even stated as to what extent, she has suffered disability. According to her, the certification was made by several medical authorities, and no reason was assigned by the Board, while disagreeing with such findings. She submits that the action of the respondent-University and the Board in not selecting her is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional. 4. On behalf of the respondent, a counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that, as required under the relevant Rules, the case of the petitioner was referred to the Board. According to them, the disability suffered by the petitioner was identified as "multiple exostosis", and that the same was not recognized, as handicap. To meet the allegation about diversion of the seats, reserved for physically handicapped candidates, to general category, the respondent states that in the previous academic year, only one candidate was found eligible, and rest of the 85 seats were diverted to general category. . 5. Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that clients suffered a serious infirmity to the lower limbs from the birth, and she cannot fold her legs. . 5. Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that clients suffered a serious infirmity to the lower limbs from the birth, and she cannot fold her legs. He contends that the evaluation or filtration becomes relevant, only when the number of candidates exceeds the number of available seats, and in the respondent-University, the task assigned to the Board appear to be, only to disqualify the candidates, so that the seats are taken away from the purview of reservation. He submits that the proceeding sheets of the Board, that are made available by the respondent, an application, filed under the Right to Information Act, speak for themselves, and they do not connote a serious and objective exercise of evaluation. 6. Sri D. V. Nagarjuna Babu, learned Counsel for the respondent-University, on the other hand, submits that the procedure for referring the cases of physically handicapped candidates, to a Board, was adopted, to ensure objective assessment, and that the Board comprises of highly qualified Doctors. He contends that the evaluation undertaken by the Board is final, in the context of selection of candidates for admission, and the petitioner cannot challenge the findings. Learned Counsel further contends that, even if the petitioner is otherwise found eligible, she cannot be admitted, at this stage, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh, 2002 (6) ALD 40 (SC) = AIR 2002 SC 3230 . 7. With the rank secured by her in the EAMCET, the petitioner could not get a seat in the general category. Though she was eligible to be admitted under payment category, her financial condition did not permit her, to seek admission in that category. The petitioner suffered orthopedic handicap, ever since her birth. The Board, at Adilabad, examined her on 7.6.2003, when her age was 12 years. The Board certified the extent of disability as 50%. Along with her application for admission, the petitioner enclosed the said certificate. 8. As regards the locomotor disorder, the Rules mandate that the candidates must have the handicap between 40 and 70%. The respondent has provided for its own mechanism of evaluation of handicaps of different category. As against 86 seats, that are reserved in favour of physically handicapped candidates, only 46 applications were received. Therefore, the task of the Board was reduced to a substantial extent. The respondent has provided for its own mechanism of evaluation of handicaps of different category. As against 86 seats, that are reserved in favour of physically handicapped candidates, only 46 applications were received. Therefore, the task of the Board was reduced to a substantial extent. There would have been necessity for them to undertake stringent examination, if it became necessary to eliminate candidates from the competition. It must not be forgotten that the evaluation is already undertaken by one agency or the other, and except where it is found to be totally untenable, interference is not warranted. 9. The Board cleared only 15 cases, resulting in diversion of 71 seats to general category. If one takes into account the demand, for a medical seat in open category, whether in private or Government colleges into account, the implication thereof can easily be imagined. The surprising part of it is, that, in the previous academic year, all the seats, except one, were diverted to the general category. That however is a different aspect. 10. The respondent-University has made available, the proceedings of the Board, that evaluated the physically handicapped candidates. Here itself, it is necessary to add a note of caution, that this Court cannot act as an Appellate Authority over the evaluation done by an expert body. However, if one goes by the nature of evaluation, and the endorsements made by the Board, serious doubt exists, about its objectivity. Majority of the candidates were eliminated with the endorsements "N.A". This was made even in cases of the handicap of "deafuess and blindness" also. It is relevant to mention that a handicap with the abbreviation of PRRP was treated as "N.A", in some cases, and for others, the rejection was, on the ground that the handicap was less than 40%. 11. After hearing the parties at length, and on perusal of the record, this Court felt that it would be appropriate to subject the petitioner for evaluation by a Board of a reputed Government Institute. Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences (NIMS) is one of the pioneers in Orthopedics. Before it came to be named as Institute of Medical Sciences, its name was Nizam's Orthopaedic Hospital. Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences (NIMS) is one of the pioneers in Orthopedics. Before it came to be named as Institute of Medical Sciences, its name was Nizam's Orthopaedic Hospital. Through an order dated 23.10.2009, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Director of NIMS, and the Director in turn, was requested to constitute a Board, to certify the extent of disability, suffered by the petitioner to her lower limbs. A Board, comprising of Head, Department of Orthopedics, and Assistant Professor of Orthopedics was constituted. After examining the petitioner, the Board certified that the petitioner is suffering from "multiple extorters of both lower limbs with deformities and the percentage of orthopedic handicapped is 50% (fifty percent)". Accordingly a certificate, dated 18.1 1.2009 was issued. The respondent does not doubt the accuracy of this certification. It, therefore, clearly emerges that the petitioner was wrongfully denied admission under physically handicapped category. 12. Had the evaluation, as mentioned above, been conducted in the right earnest, there would not be any difficulty for this Court to direct the respondent to admit the petitioner into the I Year of MBBS Course, in the current academic year itself. The admissions were concluded, and classes commenced long back. In Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has fixed the calendar for admission into under-graduate and post-graduate medical courses. Prohibition is imposed against admission of candidates, in contravention of the calendar. 13. In Tulasipriya v. A.P. State Council for Higher Education, AIR 1999 SC 199 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, if a candidate is wrongfully denied admission, and if it becomes impossible for granting remedy for that academic year, his, or her case shall be considered for the next academic year. Following that principle, this Court granted similar relief in M. John David v. NTR University of Health Sciences, 2003 (1) ALD 622 . That was also a case of admission into I Year MBBS Course, and the denial was, on account of doubting the social status. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that a Division Bench of this Court granted identical relief. 14. That was also a case of admission into I Year MBBS Course, and the denial was, on account of doubting the social status. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that a Division Bench of this Court granted identical relief. 14. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, and it is directed that the petitioner shall be considered for admission, against a seat reserved for physically handicapped candidates; into the I Year MBBS Course in the next academic year, i.e. 2010-11, without subjecting her to EAMCET, conducted for that academic year. 15. There shall be no order as to costs.