Order:-This writ petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to admit the petitioner in MBBS Course for the academic year 2012- 2013 in the quota reserved for physically handicapped persons based on the disability certificate issued to the petitioner by the District Medical Board, Thanjavur on 24.11.2010. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a poor handicapped (deformity in her Right leg) child by birth and she belongs to backward class community and applied for the admission for MBBS course for the academic year 2012-2013 under the quota reserved for physically handicapped persons. According to the petitioner, she has secured 891 marks out of 1200 marks in the higher secondary examinations held in March 2012. As per the prospectus, 51 seats were earmarked for the physically handicapped students for MBBS course and three seats were earmarked for BDS course. She had been issued with the certificate of disability by the District Medical Board constituted under the provisions of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunity, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and the Rules made thereunder. As per the certificate issued by the District Medical Board, she has been assessed the disability at 60% (orthopedically handicapped). On the basis of the disability certificate issued by the District Medical Board certificate, she had applied for MBBS course and she was called for counseling on 05.07.2012. Her ranking was 24708 and her cut off marks is 192.75. As per the prospectus, even though medical certificate issued by the competent board, the petitioner was subjected to medical test for ascertaining the disability by the committee constituted by the second respondent at the time of counselling. The said Committee examined her. But, without giving any order for refusal of admission to the petitioner for MBBS course and without assigning any reason for refusing the admission, she was only told that she was not eligible for MBBS admission. According to her, she was able to walk with artificial limb. Further, she can even climb stairs on her own without anyone's support. According to her, since the competent District Medical Board had certified her disability at 60%, she was eligible to be considered for MBBS course admission. First of all, she should not have been subjected to further examination by an Expert Committee constituted by Selection Committee. Further, she can even climb stairs on her own without anyone's support. According to her, since the competent District Medical Board had certified her disability at 60%, she was eligible to be considered for MBBS course admission. First of all, she should not have been subjected to further examination by an Expert Committee constituted by Selection Committee. Secondly, the rejection of her application without assigning any reason is not legally sustainable. 3. As per Rule 4 of the Central Rules 1996 called as the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunity, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and the Rules made thereunder deals with the issuance of such certificate by the Medical Board and the validity of the certificate is defined in Clause 6. As in earlier occasion, the very prospectus rule was set aside for the academic year 2009-2010. In the appeal since compromise was arrived at, the party in that case was sent to a further Medical Board and the appellate Court has remarked that it is not a precedent. But the point is that when the Medical Board comes to erroneous decision, it can be challenged in a Court of law. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with a mandamus directing the respondent to admit her in MBBS course for the academic year 2012-2013 under the quota reserved for physically handicapped persons based on the disability certificate issued to the petitioner by the District Medical Board, Thanjavur, on 24.11.2010. 4. When the matter came up for admission, the learned Additional Advocate General took notice and sought time to get instructions. On the next hearing, the learned Additional Advocate General though did not file any counter, on instructions, produced the Certificate of Locomotor Disability issued by the Medical Board constituted by the Selection Committee and contended that since the petitioner has got 80% of disability of the lower limbs, which is non-progressive, she will not be entitled for the admission process as per Medical Regulations. In this connection, he would also rely upon the Medical Council of India, Amendment Notification, New Delhi, 25th March, 2009 and contended that after the said notification, only persons who have locomotors disability of the lower limbs between 50% and 70% only will be considered. As she has more percentage of disability, the petitioner will not be eligible under the quota reserved for physically handicapped and rightly her application has been rejected. As she has more percentage of disability, the petitioner will not be eligible under the quota reserved for physically handicapped and rightly her application has been rejected. A copy of which was produced to state that the prospectus contained only a percentage as envisaged by the Medical Council of India. Therefore, nothing wrong in rejecting the application of the petitioner for having permanent disability of 80%. Hence, he would contend that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard both sides. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal as the counselling for the admission is going on and the last date for counselling is 14th July 2012. 6. The pathetic case of the petitioner, who is a physically disabled person, is that her application seeking admission under physically disabled quota has not been properly appreciated and rejected without any basis. It is the admitted case of both the parties that the petitioner is a physically disabled person who is eligible to apply. The petitioner was given a passbook by the Government of Tamil Nadu to the effect that she is a physically disabled person who has got 60% disability and the Board has further certified that she has a Congenital focal femoral deficiencies (F). This certificate has been issued by a Special Medical Board for Disability Assessment, Thanjavur Medical College and also countersigned by the Dean, Thanjavur Medical College, Thanjavur. As per the said certificate, she is entitled to all the benefits under the Act to apply for the quota seats as well as even for employment reserved under physically handicapped category. 7. In fact, straight away when we take into consideration, the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunity, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (Act 1 of 1996) and the Rules formulated thereunder along with Section 39 Medical Council Regulation which prescribes locomotors disability, the first and foremost conclusion is that the persons who are in disability between 40% to 70% are automatically entitled to the benefits granted under the Act both for employment as well as admission even as per the Supreme Court judgment. It is worthwhile to extract Section 37 of the Disabilities Act which envisages the Government to give necessary protection to the disabled persons both for reservation job as well as for education. It is worthwhile to extract Section 37 of the Disabilities Act which envisages the Government to give necessary protection to the disabled persons both for reservation job as well as for education. In fact, the words 'shall' and 'persons with disability' are used in that Section is defined under Section 2 (t) and 2(i) of the Disabilities Act, which reads as under: "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." "2(i) "disability" means- (i)blindness; (ii)low vision; (iii)leprosy cured; (iv)hearing impairment; (v)locomotor disability (vi)mental retardation; (vii)mental illness;" 8. In this case, it is worthwhile to refer to Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Central Rules, 1996, which read as under: "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". 9. 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". 9. 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. Even as per the Rules framed by the Government of Tamil Nadu with the powers under Section 73 (1) of the Central Act, in Rule 6 the validity of the certificate which reads as under: "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." 10. Therefore, after the constitutional 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 the disability. Further, the selection to the Medical College under disabled candidate quota is concerned, the percentage is totally governed by the Central Act followed by the procedure enunciated by the State Rules. The Medical Certificate issued by the relevant Board is valid. No doubt that particular Board as envisaged under the Act and Rules has specifically stated that the petitioner has got 60% disability. In the normal circumstances, it is the ultimate certificate required for bona fide students. 11. The argument made by the learned Additional Advocate General stating that inspite of this certificate issued, in the prospectus it is clearly stated that any candidate who seeks such concession should also undergo medical test by a competent board constituted by the Selection Committee and that there is a condition in the prospectus and having subjected to medical examination, it is not open for the petitioner to challenge the same. In this case, as the Medical Board so constituted by the Selection Committee, on examination of the petitioner on the date of counselling, has come to the conclusion that the disability is 80%. Hence, it is no more open for the petitioner to challenge the same. 12. Taking into consideration this argument, first of all, we should see how the Medical Board constituted by the Selection Committee had examined and arrived at the conclusion. It is the admitted case that the petitioner was examined by the Medical Board at the time of counselling. On such examination, the Medical Board constituted by the Selection Committee has given the following report. For reference, we have extracted the same as it is: 13. A cursory look at the certificate issued by the Board is shocking to the conscience of the Court for the following discrepancies. First, when the document was produced before the Court, this Court noticed 60% was originally written, struck off and thereafter 80% was inserted and also in the words column also 80% in number was written and then struck off. When this was pointed out to the Learned Additional Advocate General in the open Court itself, he gave an explanation that the Medical Board has wrongly written 60% in number column but in the words column they have correctly written as 80% in number instead of words and thereafter, they struck off both the entries and correctly written it in number as well as words as 80%. First of all, for the said corrections there was no initial authorising such correction. None of the medial board persons have made any sign or even abbreviated signature attesting the corrections made. Therefore, the correction plays a pivotal role. The Board has thought it fit to fix originally at 60% and thereafter the percentage was changed into 80%, but there was no authorisation for the corrections made by putting signature by anyone of the Doctors. The mere explanation of the learned Additional Advocate General for that in words it has been correctly written as 80% in numbers, cannot be accepted. Even then in the word column also only the number was originally mentioned and that was again struck off and 80% in words was interpolated in the column. The mere explanation of the learned Additional Advocate General for that in words it has been correctly written as 80% in numbers, cannot be accepted. Even then in the word column also only the number was originally mentioned and that was again struck off and 80% in words was interpolated in the column. This gave me a room to think over and compare this Certificate with the certificate issued by the competent medical board of the Tamil Nadu Government. 14. Now, as per the Government of Tamil Nadu Medical Board passbook, the Special Medical Board for Disability Assessment has certified that it is a case of Congenital focal femoral deficiency". Then the percentage of disability is given as 60%. As far as the word Congenital is concerned, in the Dorland's Medical Dictionary for Health Consumers. (c) 2007, it has been described as "existing at, and usually before, birth; referring to conditions that are present at birth, regardless of their causation" and in The American Heritage (R) Medical Dictionary Copyright (c) 2007, it has been described as "1.Existing at or before birth usually through heredity, as a disorder; 2. Acquired at birth or during uterine development, usually as a result of environmental influences. As far as the word Focal is concerned, in Miller-Keane Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing, and Allied Health, Seventh Edition, (c) 2003 it has been described as "foal disease a localized disease. It is limited to a small area or volume or pertaining to or emanating from focus." As far as the word Femoral is concerned, in the Dorland's Medical Dictionary for Health Consumers. (c) 2007, it has been described as "pertaining to the femur or to the thigh. It also denotes Of or relating to the femur or thigh. As far as the word 'Deficiency' is concerned, in The American Heritage (R) Medical Dictionary Copyright (c) 2007, as "A lack or shortage of something essential to health; an insufficiency". In Gale Encyclopaedia of Medicine. Copyright 2008 it has been described as 'A shortage of something necessary for health'. It also denotes Of or relating to the femur or thigh. As far as the word 'Deficiency' is concerned, in The American Heritage (R) Medical Dictionary Copyright (c) 2007, as "A lack or shortage of something essential to health; an insufficiency". In Gale Encyclopaedia of Medicine. Copyright 2008 it has been described as 'A shortage of something necessary for health'. Further, in Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 8th Edition (c) 2009 it has been described as "a lack or shortage; a condition characterised by the presence of less than the normal or necessary supply or competence." Therefore, as per medical parlance, the details of the certificate issued by the competent Medical Board would mean that the person has got existing at or before birth a condition that developed while the fetus was in utero or as a consequence of the birth process. Therefore, here is the person who has been certified to have a birth disorder of the femur which is focused on that area is the deficiency and the percentage is 60%. This is the medical explanation to the status of the condition of the student as we find from the certificate of the Medical Board. 15. Now when we take the certificate of the Medical Board which has been examined at the time of counselling, the Board says that the petitioner is suffering from AK Amputee. AK denoting above knee. "The amputee described in the medical dictionary, as A person who has had one or more limbs removed by amputation as per The American Heritage (R) Medical Dictionary Copyright (c) 2007, that means the Board has certified that here is the petitioner whose limb has been removed by amputation whereas the competent Medical Board has certified that it is a birth disorder and therefore, can the Medical Board constituted by the Selection Committee now say it is the case of amputation, which is totally different. Therefore, this is a major discrepancy. Even as per the certificate there is a specific column to say whether the petitioner is eligible or not eligible for admission. In this column as per the certificate itself there is an asterisk mark mentioned in the particular sentence which reads as follows: "*if the candidate is unfit to seek admission into MBBS/BDS Course reasons to be stated thereon." 16. In this column as per the certificate itself there is an asterisk mark mentioned in the particular sentence which reads as follows: "*if the candidate is unfit to seek admission into MBBS/BDS Course reasons to be stated thereon." 16. In this column when there is a specific condition that if the candidate is unfit to seek admission the Board has to state reason at that particular place. But unfortunately we do not find any reason at all to show why this application was rejected. Now the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that 80% is written in the top. Therefore, it is beyond 70%. Therefore she is not eligible. Is it not a duty of the Board to write at the appropriate place that she has been rejected as the percentage is more which is specifically lacking in the certificate. Further, along with the certificate the annexure has also been sent which is already extracted. There also nowhere we find any reason excepting that the fact in column 7 it is mentioned as AK amputee and 80%, we also find in all other parameters which is required she has been stated as complying with all the parameters including good standing balance with caliber but without any support. Therefore, on a very reading of the certificate we find error apparent on the face of the record. Can this evaluation be a basis for rejection of the petitioner's application? This Court doubts the same. Whether at all such a certificate issued by the medical board could be equated with that valid medical certificate issued by the competent medical board constituted under the Act. Definitely, we will have to take into consideration only the valid certificate issued by the competent board. 17. In this connection, I am fortified by the Division Bench decision reported in AIR 2005 Madras 346, P.Rajaprabaharan v. The Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, wherein the Division Bench held as follows: "3-A. ... We respectfully disagree with the learned single Judge. In our opinion, Sec. 2 (t) of the said Act is very clear. A person suffering from not less than forty percent of any disability as certified by a medical authority is a person with disability as defined in Sec. 2(t) of the said Act. We respectfully disagree with the learned single Judge. In our opinion, Sec. 2 (t) of the said Act is very clear. A person suffering from not less than forty percent of any disability as certified by a medical authority is a person with disability as defined in Sec. 2(t) of the said Act. The State Government cannot prescribe a higher level of disability than the one prescribed under the said Act as the executive cannot override the legislature. 4. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is a person with disability as defined in Sec. 2 (t) of the said Act and he is entitled to claim the benefits of Sec. 39 of the said Act. Hence, the relevant clause in the prospectus prescribing that candidates with 50% to 70% of disability aloe were entitled for consideration under seats reserved for physically disabled persons is, in our opinion, invalid." 18. In this case, of course, the petitioner has got 60% but unfortunately the Medical Board constituted by the Selection Committee has given 80% which is so much of discrepancies. Above all those things, they have not even stated the reason for non-eligibility at the appropriate column. Further, in the Medical Council of India notification which is followed in the prospectus that the candidates with locomotors disability of lower limbs between 50% and 70% are eligible is filled up by the persons with locomotors disability of lower limbs between 40% and 50% will be considered. Unfortunately, this notification has been set aside by the judgment of this Court reported in 2011 (6) CTC 526 cited supra. Without going into the question as to the challenge to the notification or prospectus as the writ petitioner has not challenged the prospectus or the regulations even assuming that under the prospectus she has undergone and accepted the medical test, definitely, the Board before rejection should have given any reason and as I have pointed out there are clear discrepancies and above all, the Board has not given any reason at all for rejection. Therefore, the argument of the learned Additional Advocate General that mere mentioning of 80% is indication of reason to reject cannot be accepted. 19. Therefore, the argument of the learned Additional Advocate General that mere mentioning of 80% is indication of reason to reject cannot be accepted. 19. On seeing the huge discrepancies in the assessment of the Medical Board constituted by the Selection Committee, this Court can have no second opinion to grant the relief to the petitioner on the basis of the original certificate produced by the petitioner. The said certificate has been issued by the competent authority. In this connection, in respect of granting the relief this Court would rely upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2008 (3) TNLJ 412 (Civil), P.Mahavishnu v. The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Government Transport Corporation (Madurai) at Tirunelveli, for the proposition that in the case of persons who are lowly placed the Courts have a duty to stretch the law as far as possible, without violating it, to give relief to those persons. Here is the fittest case where a physically handicapped girl coming from a backward class community has been deprived of her legitimate seat by the carelessness and lethargic attitude of the Medical Board in assessing the actual deficiency of the girl. It is useful to extract the relevant portion of the above said judgment which reads as under: "10. The Apex Court has repeatedly emphasised that when a person is denied his fundamental rights, such denial has to be based on a procedure which is just, reasonable and fair. There is no fixed standard of fairness. Fairness has to be judged in the facts and circumstances of each case and in judging the fairness of a procedure, the Court must have due consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, including the societal condition in which the parties are placed. The case of a person who is trying to eke out his living by accepting the job of a bus Conductor must be judged with a standard of a fairness which is obviously a little different from the cases of business barons or those of corporate magnets. In the cases of persons who are lowly placed the Courts have a duty to stretch the law as far as possible, without violating it, to give relief to those persons." (Emphasis supplied) 20. In the cases of persons who are lowly placed the Courts have a duty to stretch the law as far as possible, without violating it, to give relief to those persons." (Emphasis supplied) 20. The Division Bench has followed the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the proposition that fairness has to be judged in the facts and circumstances of each case. Here the fairness is to be judged because of the girl has to be taken note for getting her admission. Therefore, here is the fittest case where the physically disabled candidate who has got only 60% disability as enunciated by the Board who is well within the limits of the cut off marks who has been called for counselling is wrongly rejected and omitted to be given a seat. Therefore, since the counselling is still going on the petitioner will be given a seat on the basis that she has got 60% disabilities with her cut off marks treating as a eligible candidate under the quota reserved for physically disabled candidates for admission to MBBS/BDS course for the academic year 2012- 2013 as per the cut off as she is eligible. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.