Judgment 1. These writ petitions are primarily against the mandatory clause in the prospectus issued by the Directorate of Medical Education that the medical certificates issued by the District Medical Board of the area concerned for claiming seats under the quota reserved for Orthopedically Physically disabled category would be subjected to confirmation by the expert team at the time of counseling. The facts: 2. The petitioners are all physically challenged candidates aspiring for admission to MBBS/BDS course for the academic year 2013-14. The following chart would indicate the percentage of disability of each of the petitioners. W.P. No. Petitioner Name Percentage of disability 17199 of 2013 T. Nalini 60% 17200 of 2013 R. Anbumani 60% 17902 of 2013 R. Sangeetha 40% 17201 of 2013 R. Devipriya 70% 3. The petitioners submitted applications before the selection committee claiming seat under the quota reserved for Orthopedically Physically disabled candidates. The petitioners obtained certificate from the District Medical Board and appeared before the Selection Committee for counseling. The petitioners were directed to appear before the expert team constituted by the Director of Medical Education to assess the percentage of disability once again, in the light of the medical certificate issued by the District Medical Board. The expert committee verified the medical certificates of the concerned candidates once again and issued certificates indicating different percentage of disability. The petitioners were denied admission on account of the finding given by the expert committee with regard to disability. The petitioners therefore wanted to quash the clause in the prospectus with regard to the subsequent examination by the expert team to decide the percentage of disability. 4. It is the contention of the petitioners that once disability certificate is issued by the District Medical Board, it is not open to the selection committee to test the said certificate by subjecting the candidate to a fresh medical examination. 5. The Director of Medical Education cum Secretary, Selection Committee, filed a detailed counter affidavit in each of the writ petitions. According to the Secretary, medical examination was conducted in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Medical Council of India. The certificate issued by the District Medical Board is not final. Prospectus was issued with a definite purpose taking into account the guidelines issued by the Medical Council of India. According to the Secretary, medical examination was conducted in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Medical Council of India. The certificate issued by the District Medical Board is not final. Prospectus was issued with a definite purpose taking into account the guidelines issued by the Medical Council of India. The certificate issued by the District Medical Board requires to be examined by an expert team comprising experts in all the field. Therefore, there was nothing wrong in conducting fresh examination by the medical team nominated by the Director of Medical Education. Submissions: 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the District Medical Board issued certificates indicating the percentage of disability. The certificate was issued on a permanent basis and as such, it was not open to the Selection Committee to direct the candidates to undergo medical examination once again. The learned counsels jointly contended that the second examination was just an eye wash intended to deny benefits to the deserving Orthopedically Physically disabled candidates and to transfer the seats to general category. 7. The learned Special Government Pleader by giving facts and figures contended that experts were not part of the District Medical Board and at times, certificates were given in a routine manner. The Medical Council of India wanted the selection committee to adopt a uniform policy in the matter of assessment of disability. It was only on account of the guidelines issued by Medical Council of India, the Government adopted a policy to reassess the disability at the time of counseling, without reference to the disability certificates issued by the District Medical Board. The learned Government Pleader contended that the petitioners were examined in detail by the experts and having found that the disability was either less than 40% or above 70%, they were all denied admission. The issue: 8. The core question is whether the selection committee was justified in inserting a clause in the prospectus that the medical certificates issued by the District Medical Board would be subjected to confirmation by the expert team constituted by the Director of Medical Education at the time of counseling. Analysis: 9. The Government of Tamil Nadu through the Directorate of Medical Education, issued a prospectus for admission to MBBS/BDS courses for the academic year 2013-14. The cases of physically disabled candidates are included under the special category. Analysis: 9. The Government of Tamil Nadu through the Directorate of Medical Education, issued a prospectus for admission to MBBS/BDS courses for the academic year 2013-14. The cases of physically disabled candidates are included under the special category. The Government have reserved 3% of the total number of seats available in Government Medical/Dental institutions for the orthopaedically physically disabled candidates. As per the prospectus, at the first instance, candidates with disability of lower limbs between 50% to 70% would be considered. In case candidates are not available in that category, then, others with disability of lower limbs between 40% to 50% would be considered. The candidates are required to produce a certificate from the District Medical Board of the area concerned, constituted for the purpose of assessing the nature and extent of disability. The certificate should be in the prescribed format appended to the prospectus and it should have been obtained within three months, prior to the date of application for admission. The prospectus further provided that disability certificate issued by the District Medical Board would be subjected to confirmation by the Expert Committee constituted by the Director of Medical Education at the time of counselling. The candidates were directed to produce a full size photograph exhibiting their deformity. 10. The petitioners obtained disability certificate from the District Medical Board and produced the same along with the application. The petitioners were called for counselling for consideration of their case under the “Orthopaedically physically disabled” category. The petitioners were subjected to second medical examination by the expert team constituted by the Selection Committee. The expert team rejected the claim on the ground that the petitioners failed to satisfy the criteria fixed by the Medical Council of India for admission under the Orthopaedically physically disabled category. The petitioners now seek a Writ of Mandamus to consider them for admission under the “Disabled Category” on the strength of the Disability Certificate issued by the District Medical Board. 11. The counter affidavit filed by the Selection Committee shows that out of total 131 applicants 81 candidates were referred to the Medical Board constituted by the Director of Medical Education and only 45 candidates were declared eligible for admission under physically disabled category. 12. It is a matter of record that out of the total reserved seats of 54, only 44 candidates were admitted to the MBBS Course and one BDS under the Disabled Category. 12. It is a matter of record that out of the total reserved seats of 54, only 44 candidates were admitted to the MBBS Course and one BDS under the Disabled Category. The remaining 10 MBBS seats were allotted to the General category Candidates. 13. The individual petitioners were declared ineligible either on account of disability exceeding 70% or on account of less than 40%. 14. Since the petitioners have made serious allegations against the expert team, that they were not examined in detail and only photographs were looked into for the purpose of deciding the disability and abruptly closed the examination process, I have directed the Director of medical Education to constitute a special medical team with the following members: * 1. Dr. Rajasekaran MS (Ortho).D.Ortho Professor and Head of Department of Orthopaedics, Madras Medical College, Chennai 3. * 2. Dr. K. Banu, MD. DM (Neuro) Professor of Neurology, Madras Medical College, Chennai 3. * 3. Dr. Ramesh, Director I/c, Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K.Nagar, Chennai 78. * 4. Dr. Nalli Yuvaraj, Spine Specialists, Madras Medical College, Madras. 15. The special medical team examined all these petitioners and found that they were not qualified for selection under the quota reserved for orthopaedically disabled candidates. 16. The petitioners have placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in K. Kuralarasam v. Secretary to Government, (2009) 8 MLJ 1357 in support of their contention that this Court has already quashed Clause 42(iv) of the prospectus for the year 2009-10 insofar as it relates to the constitution of expert committee to oversee the certificates issued by the District Medical Board. It is also a matter of record that when a similar challenge was made to the clause in the prospectus with regard to second medical examination, the plea was negatived by this Court. 17. The learned Special Government Pleader placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in M. Rosy v. V. Dhanasekaran(dated 1.8.2012). The learned Judge held that the special medical Board constituted by the State Government was in terms of the direction given by the Medical Council of India and as such, it cannot be said that the direction to take second medical opinion was not justified. 18. The Government have reserved seats for Orthopedically Physically disabled candidates. The learned Judge held that the special medical Board constituted by the State Government was in terms of the direction given by the Medical Council of India and as such, it cannot be said that the direction to take second medical opinion was not justified. 18. The Government have reserved seats for Orthopedically Physically disabled candidates. Medical Council of India in its guidelines indicated that for admission under the reserved category for Orthopedically Physically disabled candidates, the disability of lower limbs should be between 40% and 70%. In the first instance, candidates with disability between 50% and 70% would be considered. In case candidates are not available in the said category, then only candidates with disability of lower limbs between 40% and 50% would be considered. Therefore, percentage of disability and its fixation by expert team would assume considerable importance. 19. The certificates produced by the petitioners indicate that in some cases, subject experts were not available and as a result, available members of the District Medical Board assessed the disability. There is no dispute that for issuing a certificate like this, specialized Orthopedic surgeon should be a member of the District Medical Board. The Medical Council of India norms also prescribes such a condition. Some of the medical boards were not having the benefit of Orthopedic experts and as a result, disability was assessed by experts of different branch, without the assistance of subject expert. In fact, while considering a writ petition filed by an engineering student claiming reservation under Orthopedically Physically disabled category, it was found that District Medical Board had first issued a certificate indicating 60% disability and subsequently the very same Board issued another certificate to the same candidate, certifying disability at 40%. This kind of casual manner of issuance of certificates naturally would give an impression that all is not well in the matter of assessment of disability. In case the District Medical Board was not having the benefit of experts in all the fields, no reliance could be placed on such certificates, to claim the benefits of reservation. The Selection Committee should be in a position to arrive at a conclusion that the candidate suffers from disability and he/she is entitled to a seat under the disabled category. The candidates are coming from different Districts. Percentage of disability was not given on a uniform basis. The Selection Committee should be in a position to arrive at a conclusion that the candidate suffers from disability and he/she is entitled to a seat under the disabled category. The candidates are coming from different Districts. Percentage of disability was not given on a uniform basis. The Selection Committee at Chennai should adopt a uniform procedure in the matter of assessing disability. It was only for the said purpose, the Government incorporated a clause in the prospectus that the disability certificates obtained from the District Medical Board would be subjected to confirmation by expert committee constituted by the Director of Medical Education at the time of counselling. By prescribing such a condition, it cannot be said that the expert committee was sitting on appeal over the decision taken by the District Medical Board. 20. The petitioners have taken up a contention that in case the expert committee is examining candidates once again, there is no requirement to obtain a certificate from the District Medical Board. I am not inclined to accept the said contention. Submission of disability certificate is a condition precedent for entertaining application under the quota reserved for Orthopedically Physically disabled candidates. It is only when the candidate satisfies the selection committee by prima facie materials, that he is entitled to be considered under the reserved category, he would be permitted to appear for counselling. Therefore, it cannot be said that having obtained a certificate from the District Medical Board it was not correct to send the candidates for second medical examination by the expert team during the time of counseling. 21. The Government have reserved 3% of the total number of seats available in Government Medical/Dental institutions for Orthopedically Physically disabled candidates. The reservation was made with a noble purpose. Seats under reserved quota should be given to eligible and deserving candidates. The seats should not be given solely on account of the disability certificate produced by the District Medical Board notwithstanding the fact that subject experts were not part of the Board. 22. The petitioners have submitted applications on the basis of the prospectus issued by the Selection Committee. The prospectus contain a clause with regard to the confirmation of medical certificate by the expert committee. The petitioners have submitted their applications and subjected themselves to medical examination by expert committee. 22. The petitioners have submitted applications on the basis of the prospectus issued by the Selection Committee. The prospectus contain a clause with regard to the confirmation of medical certificate by the expert committee. The petitioners have submitted their applications and subjected themselves to medical examination by expert committee. It was only thereafter, they have filed these writ petitions, challenging the condition regarding second medical examination. 23. The petitioners were given an opportunity once again to test their disability by another expert committee. In fact, it was only at the instance of the petitioners, Dr.Nalli Yuvaraj, was included as a member of the expert committee. The experts have unanimously arrived at a finding with regard to disability. The petitioners have not challenged the correctness of the third medical opinion. They are placing reliance only on the certificate issued by the District Medical Board. The District Medical Officers in the absence of a uniform scale, assessed the disability. The selection committee was therefore fully correct in incorporating a provision with regard to confirmation of disability certificate issued by the District Medical Board by an Expert Team constituted by the Selection Committee. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contentions raised by the petitioners with regard to the second medical test by the expert team. However, it is made clear that the expert committee must consist of senior professionals and there should not be any room for complaints that the certificates issued by senior members of the medical profession were rejected by junior members of the expert committee without any basis. 24. The string of materials available on record proves that the Government was fully correct in incorporating a clause with regard to the confirmation of medical certificate by the expert committee at the time of counselling. 25. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition are closed. Petitions dismissed.