JUDGMENT : Ziyad Rahman A.A., J. The petitioners in these Writ Petitions are aggrieved by the assessment of physical disability made by the State Medical Board and the State Level Committee constituted by the State Government, to assess the physical disability and suitability of the candidates, for considering them for admission to the MBBS and other medical courses, as contemplated in the prospectus issued for KEAM 2024. 2. In all these cases, the petitioners were certified by the competent authorities under the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016(hereinafter referred to as the RPwD Act, 2016) as persons with benchmark disability having sustained an extent of disability of 40% and above. As per Section 32 of the RPwD Act 2016, all Government institutions of higher education and other higher educational institutions receiving aid from the government shall reserve not less than 5% seats for persons with benchmark disabilities. 3. Being eligible for the reservation contemplated under Section 32 of the RPwD Act, 2016, all the petitioners have submitted their applications. As part of processing the said applications, the petitioners were subjected to examination by a State Medical Board constituted by the State Government and an assessment was made as contemplated under clause 5.3 of the prospectus, a copy of which is marked as Ext.P8 in WP(C) No.29803/2024. In the said assessment, all the petitioners were found to be having physical disabilities to the extent of less than 40%. Thereafter, further scrutiny was conducted by the State Level Committee constituted as per the prospectus and final decisions were taken in the matter of the petitioners and the said decisions were to the effect that, even though the petitioners are suitable for pursuing the medical courses, they are not entitled to admission under the quota set apart for physically disabled candidates. Based on the same, the petitioners were not included in the category-wise list published by the Commissioner for Entrance Examination for physically disabled candidates. These Writ Petitions were filed by the petitioners in such circumstances, seeking various reliefs, including the inclusion of their names in the category-wise list for physically disabled candidates. 4. In all these Writ Petitions, detailed counter affidavits/statements were filed by the Commissioner of Entrance Examination. These Writ Petitions were filed by the petitioners in such circumstances, seeking various reliefs, including the inclusion of their names in the category-wise list for physically disabled candidates. 4. In all these Writ Petitions, detailed counter affidavits/statements were filed by the Commissioner of Entrance Examination. The main contention raised by the Commissioner is to the effect that, the constitution of State Medical Board and State Level Committee, and the assessments made by them, are matters specifically mentioned in clause 5.3 of the prospectus which is not under challenge in any of the writ petitions. It was also averred that, the State Medical Board as well as the State Level Committee were formed with the sole purpose of identifying the proper eligible candidates who satisfy the criteria of benchmark disability, so as to ensure that, the reservation contemplated under RPwD Act, 2016 is received by the persons who are most eligible for the same. It was also averred that all the petitioners have participated in the admission process, after clearly understanding the terms and conditions in the prospectus, including clause 5.3, and therefore, after undergoing the admission process, they cannot now turn around and challenge the decision taken by the authorities concerned, not to include them in the RPwD quota. Thus, the dismissal of the writ petitions was sought by the respondents. 5. Heard Sri. P. Deepak, the learned Senior Counsel who was assisted by Sri.Deepak Raj, the learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No.29803/2024 and WP(C) No.29723/2024, Smt. Thulasi K. Raj, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C)No.28507/2024, Sri P.G.Pramod, learned Government Pleader for the Entrance Commissioner and Sri Nirmal S. Standing Counsel for National Testing Agency, and Sri Prenjith Kumar, learned Counsel for the National Medical Commission. 6. Sri. P. Deepak, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, mainly contends that the State Medical Board and the State Level Committee constituted by the State Government, for the purpose of assessing the candidates with physical disabilities, are not competent to re-assess or interfere with the assessment of disability already made by the competent “certifying authorities” under the RPwD Act, 2016. According to him, the competence of the said authorities is confined to assessing the suitability of the applicants as per the guidelines prescribed in this regard by the National Medical Commission/Medical Council of India. According to him, the competence of the said authorities is confined to assessing the suitability of the applicants as per the guidelines prescribed in this regard by the National Medical Commission/Medical Council of India. According to him, suitability is to be determined to ensure that the applicants are capable of performing the functions of the medical professionals and that the disabilities suffered by them will not in any manner affect their performance as medical professionals. It was pointed out that, as far as the assessment of the degree of disability is concerned, a separate machinery and authorities are contemplated under various provisions in the RPwD Act, 2016 and the rules framed thereunder. The State Government cannot make an assessment of the same by creating a parallel mechanism or authorities. The learned Senior Counsel brought the attention of this Court to the various provisions under the RPwD Act, 2016, the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation] Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1995') and the Rules framed under the said enactments. Apart from the same, the learned Senior counsel brought the attention of this Court to the amendment notification dated 4.2.2019 issued by the Medical Council of India (now National Medical Commission (NMC)) by which Appendix-H was introduced by way of an amendment to the “Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 which governs the terms and conditions for the admission for medical course. In addition to that, the prospectus issued by the Entrance Commissioner for various medical and other courses during the years 2010 and 2022 were also referred to. 7. Smt. Thulasi K. Raj, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C)No.28507/2024, while reiterating the contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel argued that, the frame work of benchmark disability as prescribed under the RPwD Act 2016 cannot be frustrated with a parallel mechanism. The respective counsels for the petitioners have also relied on various decisions in support of their contentions, which shall be dealt with at the appropriate part of the judgment. 8. Sri. P.G. Pramod, the learned Govt. Pleader appearing for the Entrance Commissioner disputed the competence of the petitioners to challenge the assessment made by the State Medical Board and the State Level Committee, on the reason that there is no specific challenge against the relevant clauses in the prospectus. 8. Sri. P.G. Pramod, the learned Govt. Pleader appearing for the Entrance Commissioner disputed the competence of the petitioners to challenge the assessment made by the State Medical Board and the State Level Committee, on the reason that there is no specific challenge against the relevant clauses in the prospectus. The learned Government Pleader also harped on the fact that the petitioners participated in the admission process with open eyes by fully knowing the terms and conditions in the prospectus. Therefore, they cannot now challenge the decision taken by the authorities concerned at this stage. The learned Government Pleader, by mainly placing reliance upon various decisions, including the one rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Aswathy P. (Minor) v. State of Kerala and Others [ 2011 (1) KLT 562 ], contended that, the right of the Government to constitute another body either to cross-check the correctness of the certificate constituted under the Act or otherwise independently examine the disability of the candidate seeking any benefit contemplated under the Act, is already upheld by the courts. Therefore, no interference can be made by this Court at this juncture. 9. The issues involved in these writ petitions are to be considered in the light of the above stated facts. Thus, the crucial question that arises for consideration is whether the authorities constituted by the State Government and referred to in clause 5.3 of the prospectus, are competent to assess the degree of disability of the candidates for the purpose of making admissions to the medical courses under the quota set apart for physically disabled persons as contemplated under the RPwD Act, 2016. Before going into the question, it is necessary to examine the various provisions in the RPwD Act and the Rules framed thereunder, so as to understand the scheme and purpose of the RPwd Act, 2016. 10. Initially, the field of reservation and the special rights/preferences to physically disabled persons was occupied by the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation] Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1995') which came into effect on 7.2.1996. The said Act was brought into force based on the proclamation on the Full Participation and Equality of People with Disabilities in the Asian and Pacific Region, launched in the international meeting held in Belgium on 1/12/1992. The said Act was brought into force based on the proclamation on the Full Participation and Equality of People with Disabilities in the Asian and Pacific Region, launched in the international meeting held in Belgium on 1/12/1992. Section 39 of the Act, 1995, provided for the reservation of not less than 3% seats in all Government educational institutions and other educational institutions receiving aid from the Government, to Persons with Disabilities. The expression “persons with disability” was defined under Section 2(t) of the Act by which, he was described as a person suffering from not less than 40% of any disability as certified by a Medical authority. Medical Authority was defined as a hospital or institution specified for the purpose of the Act by notification by the appropriate government, as per Section 2(p). 11. Later, on the basis of the Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities by the United Nations, an expert committee was constituted by the Central Government, taking note of the subsequent developments, as the conceptual understanding of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has become more clear and there has been worldwide change in approach to handle the issues concerning the Persons with Disabilities. Based on the report of the expert committee so constituted, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Bill 2014 was prepared, and ultimately, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 was enacted with effect from 28.12.2016. 12. Section 32 of the RPwD Act deals with the reservation in higher educational institutions, which reads as follows: “32. Reservation in higher educational institutions.- (1)All Government institutions of higher education and other higher education institutions receiving aid from the Government shall reserve not less than five per cent seats for persons with benchmark disabilities; (2) The persons with benchmark disabilities shall be given an upper age relaxation of five years for admission in institutions of higher education. Reservation in higher educational institutions.- (1)All Government institutions of higher education and other higher education institutions receiving aid from the Government shall reserve not less than five per cent seats for persons with benchmark disabilities; (2) The persons with benchmark disabilities shall be given an upper age relaxation of five years for admission in institutions of higher education. The expression “persons with benchmark disability” is defined under Section 2(r) which reads as follows: 2(r): “Person with benchmark disability” means a person with not less than forty per cent of a specified disability where specified disability has not been defined in measurable terms and includes a person with disability where specified disability has been defined in measurable terms, as certified by the certifying authority” The expression “specified disability” is defined in Section 2(zc) which reads as follows: (zc)”specified disability” means the disabilities as specified in the Schedule” 13. Chapter X of the RPwD Act, which contains Sections 56 to 59, deals with the certification of specified disabilities. Section 56 of the Act provides that the Central Government shall notify the guidelines to assess the extent of “specified disability” in a person. Section 57 of the RPwD Act deals with the designation of the certifying authorities, which reads as follows: “57. Designation of certifying authority.-(1) The appropriate Government shall designate persons, having requisite qualifications and experience, as certifying authorities, who shall be competent to issue the certificate of disability. (2) The appropriate Government shall also notify the jurisdiction within which and the terms and conditions subject to which, the certifying authority shall perform its certification functions. This clause seeks to provide for the appropriate Government to designate certifying authority for the purpose of issuance of certificate of disability. (Notes on Clauses).” Section 58 deals with the procedure for certification, which reads as follows: “58. Procedure for certification._ (1) Any person with specified disability, may apply, in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government, to a certifying authority having jurisdiction, for issuing of a certificate of disability. (Notes on Clauses).” Section 58 deals with the procedure for certification, which reads as follows: “58. Procedure for certification._ (1) Any person with specified disability, may apply, in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government, to a certifying authority having jurisdiction, for issuing of a certificate of disability. (2) On receipt of an application under sub-section (1), the certifying authority shall assess the disability of the concerned person in accordance with relevant guidelines notified under section 56, and shall, after such assessment, as the case may be,- (a) issue a certificate of disability to such person, in such form as may be prescribed by the Central Government; (b) inform him in writing that he has no specified disability. (3) The certificate of disability issued under this section shall be valid across the country.” Section 59 provides for an appeal against the decision of the certifying authority to such appellate authority and the manner in which the appeal is to be filed, which are to be prescribed by the State Government. 14. On the strength of Section 100 of the RPwD Act, the Central Government formulated the Right of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017. Chapter VII of the Rules deals with various provisions relating to the certificate of disability. Rule 18 contemplates the issuance of certificates, which reads as follows: “18. Issue of certificate of disability.- (1) On receipt of an application under rule 17, the medical authority or any other notified competent authority shall, verify the information as provided by the applicant and shall assess the disability in terms of the relevant guidelines issued by the Central Government and after satisfying himself that the applicant is a person with disability, issue a certificate of disability in his favour in Form V,VI and VII, as the case may be (2) The medical authority shall issue the certificate of disability within a month from the date of receipt of the application. (3) The medical authority shall, after due examination- (i) issue a permanent certificate of disability in cases where there are no changes of variation of disability over time in the degree of disability; or (ii) issue a certificate of disability indicating the period of validity, in cases where there is any chance of variation over time in the degree of disability. (4) If an applicant is found ineligible for issue of certificate of disability, the medical authority shall convey the reasons to him in writing under Form VIII within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the application. (5) The State Government and Union territory Administration shall ensure that the certificate of disability is granted on online platform from such date as may be notified by the Central Government.” Rule 19 provides for the validity of the certificate issued under Rule 18, which reads as follows: “19. Certificate issued under rule 18 to be generally valid for all purposes.- A person to whom the certificate issued under rule 18 shall be entitled to apply for facilities, concessions and benefits admissible for persons with disabilities under schemes of the Government and of non Governmental organizations founded by the Government” 15. Thus, from the various provisions referred to above, it is evident that, a separate machinery is contemplated under the RPwD Act,2016 and the Rules framed thereunder, for assessment of disability for issuing the certificate and the authorities competent to issue such certificate. By virtue of Section 57 of the RPwD Act,2016, the Government shall designate persons having requisite qualifications and experience, as certifying authorities and the jurisdiction within which as well as the terms and conditions subject to which, the certifying authority shall perform the certification functions, are to be notified. The forms for submitting the application and for issuance of certificates are also prescribed in the Rules. Section 59 of the RPwD Act, contemplates for an appellate authority in case, any person is aggrieved by the decision of the certifying authority. Thus, a comprehensive mechanism has been formulated as per various provisions of the RPwD Act and Rules to ensure that, the persons with disabilities are getting all the benefits of the Act through the mechanism contemplated under the Act which also provides for remedies in case of the grievances arising out of the same. As far as the reservation for the medical courses is concerned, the same is also one of the statutory benefits specifically contemplated under section 32 of the RPwD Act. Therefore, the benefits of the same cannot be normally declined to the persons who were certified as persons with benchmark disabilities, as per the procedure contemplated under the Act. As far as the reservation for the medical courses is concerned, the same is also one of the statutory benefits specifically contemplated under section 32 of the RPwD Act. Therefore, the benefits of the same cannot be normally declined to the persons who were certified as persons with benchmark disabilities, as per the procedure contemplated under the Act. In this case, the specific case of the petitioners is that, all of them have obtained certificates from the “Certifying Authorities” as contemplated under the RPwD Act and the Rules, but they were deprived of the benefits flowing from Section 32 on the basis of a certification made by an authority which is not part of the statutory machinery contemplated under the RPwD Act. It is to be noted in this regard that, section 58(3) specifically provides that the certificate disability issued under the said provision shall be valid across the country. 16. When coming to the provisions in the prospectus for professional degree courses for the year 2024 issued by the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations, it can be seen that, clause 5.3 deals with the reservation for persons with physical disabilities, which reads as follows: “5.3 Reservation for Persons with Disabilities (PD): Five percent of the seats available to the State for allotment from the State rank lists are reserved for candidates with benchmark disabilities for all courses in Govt./Aided/Govt. Cost-Sharing Colleges as stipulated in Section 32, Chapter VI of the Persons with Disabilities Act 2016. As per Clause 2 (r), Chapter I of the Act, ‘Person with benchmark disability’ means a person with not less than 40% of a specified disability where specified disability has not been defined in measurable terms and includes a person with disability where specified disability has been defined in measurable terms, as certified by the certifying authority. Generally, candidates who have a minimum of 40% disability alone will be eligible to apply for this quota. Candidates seeking admission to Medical Courses (except BHMS course) will have to satisfy the eligibility criteria prescribed by the National Medical Commission of India for ‘Persons with Disabilities’ [See Annexure XXIV(i)] and for BHMS course the candidate will have to satisfy the eligibility criteria prescribed by the National Commission for Homoeopathy (NCH) [See Annexure XXIV(ii)] No document/certificate is to be uploaded to the online application. However, candidates claiming PD status should indicate the same on the online application. However, candidates claiming PD status should indicate the same on the online application. The State Medical Board constituted vide G.O. (MS)No.35/2020/H&FWD Dated. 17.02.2020 by the Government under the Chairmanship of DME consisting of Medical Experts in General Medicine, ENT, Neurology, Orthopaedic Surgery, Ophthalmology, Psychiatry and Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, will examine the degree of Physical disability of the candidates who are provisionally included in this category A State Level Committee constituted by the Government under the Chairmanship of the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations consisting of the members in the Medical Board constituted under the Chairmanship of DME, special invitees representing Engineering/Pharmacy/Medical/Agriculture/ Veterinary / Forestry /Fisheries specialities will take a final decision on the eligibility of a candidate for PD quota as per the criteria fixed by the various Central Councils and the suitability of the candidate to study a particular course applied by him/her. Only those candidates who are having a minimum 40% of any disability and are found to be physically suitable by the Committee for the courses opted by the candidates will be chosen for a course as only the physically fit can undergo the rigors of a professional course. The recommendations of this State Level committee will be binding on the candidates. The selection of candidates under this category will be based on the merit in the Entrance Examination and physical suitability, and not on the basis of the degree of disability. The Commissioner for Entrance Examinations will prepare and publish the list of candidates eligible under PD quota based on the recommendations of the State Level Committee. Note : However, candidates will have to qualify NEET-UG-2024 as per the qualifying criteria prescribed in the clause 9.7.5(ii) & 9.7.5(iii) for admission to MBBS /BDS /BAMS /BHMS courses and Agriculture, Forestry, Co-operation & Banking, Climate Change & Environmental Science/B.Tech Biotechnology (under KAU)/Veterinary/Fisheries respectively.” 17. As per clause 5.3, for determining the degree of disability, the criteria to be followed are those prescribed by the National Medical Commission of India for persons with disabilities, which are made part of the prospectus as Annexure XXIV (i). The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that the said Annexure is extracted from notification No.MCI-34(41)/2018-Med./170045 dated 04.02.2019, i.e., Regulations on Graduate Medical Education (Amendment), 2019. The said notification is produced as Ext.P11 in WP(C) 29803/2024. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that the said Annexure is extracted from notification No.MCI-34(41)/2018-Med./170045 dated 04.02.2019, i.e., Regulations on Graduate Medical Education (Amendment), 2019. The said notification is produced as Ext.P11 in WP(C) 29803/2024. It is evident from the said regulations that, it was notified for introducing Appendix H to the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997 formulated by the erstwhile Medical Council of India under Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. On going through Regulation 1997 referred to above, it can be seen that, clause 3.3 of the same specifically deals with candidates with benchmark disabilities. The said provision reads as follows: “3.3. In respect of candidates with benchmark disabilities specified under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the minimum marks in qualifying examination in Physics, Chemistry and Biology (or Botany and Zoology)/Bio-technology taken together in qualifying examination shall be 45% instead of 50%. 5% seats of the annual sanctioned intake capacity shall be filled up by candidates with benchmark disabilities in accordance with the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, based on the merit list of ‘National Eligibility-Cum-Entrance Test’. For this purpose the Specified Disability contained in the Schedule to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 is annexed in Appendix ‘G’. 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 31st of August.” 18. Thus, it can be seen that, even in the said regulation, for reckoning the specified disability, the schedule of the RPwD Act, 2016 was adopted and made part of the Regulations in the form of Appendix G. Now when coming to the amendment made to the Regulation, 1997, as per the notification dated 4.2.2019, it can be seen that, Appendix H, which contains guidelines regarding admission of the students with specified disabilities under RPwD Act with respect to admission in MBBS course, is incorporated. The “Notes 1 to 3” in Appendix H are very much relevant as far as the issue involved in this case is concerned, as the same indicate the adoption of the procedure and provisions contemplated under the RPwD Act for the purpose of assessment and certification of the disabilities of the persons concerned. The “Notes 1 to 3” in Appendix H are very much relevant as far as the issue involved in this case is concerned, as the same indicate the adoption of the procedure and provisions contemplated under the RPwD Act for the purpose of assessment and certification of the disabilities of the persons concerned. The said provisions read as follows: “Guidelines regarding admission of students with “Specified Disabilities” under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 with respect to admission in MBBS. Note. 1. The “Certificate of Disability” shall be issued in accordance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 notified in the Gazette of India by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment [Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan)]on 15th June 2017. 2. The extent of “specified disability” in a person shall be assessed in accordance with the “Guidelines for the purpose of assessing the extent of specified disability in a person included under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (49 of 2016)” notified in the Gazette of India by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment [Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan) on 4th January 2018. 3. The minimum degree of disability should be 40% (Benchmark Disability) in order to be eligible for availing reservation for persons with specified disability.” 19. Thus, it can be seen that, the NMC/MCI also specifically relies on the machinery and mechanism contemplated under the RPwD Act, 2016 and the Rules framed thereunder, for extending the benefits of reservation contemplated under Section 32 of the Act, so far as it is applicable to admission to MBBS course is concerned. Of course, Appendix H also contemplates the manner in which the eligibility/suitability of the candidates to be examined by providing the details thereof in a tabular form, after the Notes referred to above. However, a careful reading of the amendment notification dated 4.2.2019 would indicate that, to become eligible to get admission to the MBBS course under the RPwD quota, the candidate must have the suitability to perform the functions of the medical profession, in addition to the benchmark disability as contemplated under the RPwD Act, 2016. However, a careful reading of the amendment notification dated 4.2.2019 would indicate that, to become eligible to get admission to the MBBS course under the RPwD quota, the candidate must have the suitability to perform the functions of the medical profession, in addition to the benchmark disability as contemplated under the RPwD Act, 2016. This is very crucial because, before giving admission to persons with disability, it must be ensured that they are in a position to carry out the proper diagnosis of the illness of the patients through their senses or otherwise are capable of fulfill the requirements of the profession. Thus, what is contemplated under the scheme of reservation for the MBBS course is that, before giving admission to the candidate, the eligibility/suitability in terms of the capacity to undertake the rigours of the profession are to be assessed, even if the candidate was found to be eligible to reservation under the RPwD Act. As far as the reckoning of the suitability of the candidate is concerned, the same is not governed by the provisions of the RPwD Act, as section 32 of the Act contemplates only the entitlement of a person with benchmark disability to be considered for admission to various higher educational institutions. Suitability is a factor that has to be considered by a competent body in this regard, which, in the case of the MBBS degree course, is the NMC. Therefore, to ensure that only persons who have the capacity to fulfill the obligation of the medical profession are getting entry to the profession, the NMC has to issue necessary guidelines in this regard, which have been formulated by them in the Regulations, 1997 as amended by Regulations, 2019, which contain various provisions including Appendix-H. The crucial aspect to be noticed in this regard is that, in Appendix -H, the stipulations contained in the RPwD Act and the Rules made thereunder, as well as the guidelines prescribed under Section 56 of the Act were reiterated in the ‘Notes’ contained therein. Therefore, the only conclusion possible from the said Regulations is that, while insisting for the assessment of suitability/eligibility of the candidate in terms of his capacity to carry out the obligation of profession, for assessing benchmark disability, the procedure and machinery contemplated under RPwD Act, 2016 and the rules framed thereunder were insisted to be followed. Therefore, the only conclusion possible from the said Regulations is that, while insisting for the assessment of suitability/eligibility of the candidate in terms of his capacity to carry out the obligation of profession, for assessing benchmark disability, the procedure and machinery contemplated under RPwD Act, 2016 and the rules framed thereunder were insisted to be followed. Therefore, once a person is certified by a competent certifying authority under the RPwD Act, he accrues a right to be considered for reservation provided under Section 32, if he satisfies the criteria for eligibility or suitability in terms of his capacity to take up the responsibilities of the medical profession. 20. Thus, the question now to be considered is whether the action of the Commissioner for Entrance Examination in relying upon the assessment of the degree of disability by the State Medical Board as well as the State Level Committee, constituted by the State Government, in taking a decision that the petitioners are not entitled to reservation under the quota for physically disabled persons, was justified or not and could be acted upon. In this regard, the specific contention raised by the learned Government Pleader is that, clause 5.3 of the prospectus contemplates that, the State Medical Board will examine the degree of physical disability of candidates who are provisionally included in the category and the petitioners did not challenge the said clause in any of the writ petitions. As far as the competence of the Government to set up such a State Medical Board is concerned, the learned Government Pleader places reliance upon the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court Aswathy P's case (supra). 21. As far as the observations made by this Court as far as Aswathy P.’s case (supra) are concerned, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the principles laid down in the said decision cannot be applied in the facts of this case as such, and he raised several points in support of the said contentions. 22. The first aspect pointed out is that, at the time when Aswathy P.’s case (supra) was considered, the law applicable was different as the reservation was governed by the provisions of the Act, 1995, and the terms and conditions in the prospectus were also different. To substantiate the same, the learned Senior Counsel made available the prospectus for the year 2010. To substantiate the same, the learned Senior Counsel made available the prospectus for the year 2010. The relevant portion of clause 5.3 of the 2010 prospectus reads as follows: “5.3 Reservation for Persons with Disabilities (PD): Three percent of the seats available to the state for allotment from the state rank lists are reserved for candidates with disabilities for all courses in Govt./Aided Colleges as stipulated in Section 39, Chapter VI of the Persons with Disabilities Act 1995. As per Clause 2 (t), Chapter I of the Act, ‘Person with disability’ means a person suffering from not less than 40% of any disability as certified by a medical authority. Generally, candidates who have a minimum of 40% disability alone will be eligible to apply for this quota. Candidates seeking admission to Medical courses (except BHMS), will have to satisfy the eligibility criteria prescribed by the Medical Council of India for ‘Persons with Disabilities’. Accordingly, (i) the ‘Visually handicapped’, ‘Hearing disabled’ and ‘Locomotory disabled’ involving upper limb are not eligible for admission to the Medical courses. (ii) Candidates with ‘Locomotory disability’ of lower limb between 50% and 70% would be allowed the benefit of reservation under the Disability Act for admission to the Medical courses. Blind (including colour blind), deaf and/or dumb candidates shall not be eligible for admission to the BHMS course as per Central Council of Homoeopathy Guidelines. As per the guidelines of Medical Council of India, for admission to MBBS course, candidates with ‘Locomotory disability’ of lower limbs between 50% and 70% would be allowed the benefit of reservation under the Disability Act. Unfilled seats in this quota for MBBS course will 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. For claiming reservation under this category for MBBS/BDS/BAMS/BSMS/BHMS/BVSc. & AH courses, an attested copy of the certificate of disability from the District Medical Board certifying the degree of percentage of disability issued not earlier than 3 months prior to the submission of application has to be attached with the application form. This certificate will be considered for granting this benefit for other Medical courses, Engineering and Architecture also. However, candidates under this category, desirous of being considered for Agriculture courses [BSc. Hons. (Agri.), BFSc. This certificate will be considered for granting this benefit for other Medical courses, Engineering and Architecture also. However, candidates under this category, desirous of being considered for Agriculture courses [BSc. Hons. (Agri.), BFSc. (Fisheries)], Engineering and Architecture, need attach only an attested copy of the certificate of disability from the District Medical Board certifying the degree of percentage of disability issued not earlier than 12 months prior to the submission of application along with the application form. No document / certificate other than those mentioned above will be considered for determining disability. Based on the certificate produced along with the application form, candidates will be provisionally included under the ‘Persons with Disability’ category. The CEE will publish the merit list of such candidates, who have been included in the category. However, the inclusion in this rank list is strictly provisional. *A State Level Committee to be constituted by the Government under the Chairmanship of the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations consisting of medical experts in General Medicine, ENT, Neurology, Orthopaedic Surgery, Ophthalmology and Physical & Rehabilitation Medicine will examine and assess the disability of the candidates who are provisionally included under this category. Necessary orders constituting the Committee will be issued by the Government in due course and the same will be notified. *The State Level Committee will have powers to review the certificates issued by the District Medical Boards. There will be special invitees representing Medical /Agricultural/ Engineering specialities to this Committee in addition to Medical Experts who will subsequently determine the suitability of a candidate, having minimum 40% of any disability, for a particular course. Only those candidates who are having a minimum 40% of any disability and are found to be physically suitable by the Committee for the courses opted by the candidates will be chosen for a course as only the physically fit can undergo the rigours of a professional course. The recommendations of this State Level committee will be binding on the candidates. The selection of candidates under this category will be based on the merit in the Entrance Examination and physical suitability, and not on the basis of the degree of disability. The recommendations of this State Level committee will be binding on the candidates. The selection of candidates under this category will be based on the merit in the Entrance Examination and physical suitability, and not on the basis of the degree of disability. Note : However, candidates will have to score *45% marks in the Medical Entrance Examination (Paper I & II together) to be considered for admission to MBBS Course (*As per directives of the MCI) and 50% marks in the Medical Entrance Examination (Paper I & II together) to be considered for the admission to BDS course.” 23. It was also pointed out that, Appendix-H containing the ‘Notes’ referred to above, was also introduced much after the pronouncement of the said decision. The observation in Aswathy P.'s case (supra) which was strongly relied on by the learned Government Pleader, is at paragraphs 16 and 17 of the judgment are extracted below: “16. We regret our inability to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant. As already indicated, we proceed on the basis that Ext.P1 certificate was issued by a validly constituted Medical Board contemplated under Rule 4 of the above mentioned Rules. Even then, we are of the opinion that there is nothing in the law which prohibits the State from constituting another body either to crosscheck the correctness of the certificate issued by the Medical Board constituted under Rule 4 of the above mentioned Rules or otherwise to independently examine the disability of a candidate seeking any one of the benefits contemplated under the Act. 17. The expression 'medical authority' as defined under Section 2(p) of the Act means a hospital or institution specified for the purposes of this Act by a notification by the appropriate Government. In our opinion, the definition is capable of permitting the Government to constitute more than one medical authority depending upon the purposes of such verification. Apart from that nothing, either in the Act or in any other law, prohibits the State from taking such steps as the State deems it necessary to crosscheck the correctness of the certificates issued by a body which is otherwise competent to issue such certificates under any law. Apart from that nothing, either in the Act or in any other law, prohibits the State from taking such steps as the State deems it necessary to crosscheck the correctness of the certificates issued by a body which is otherwise competent to issue such certificates under any law. Such an exercise is obviously undertaken in the larger public interest of ensuring a fair and proper administration of law and the same cannot be held to be illegal unless specifically prohibited by any law. No such prohibition has been brought to our notice in the context of the case. We, therefore, do not see any reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal. The writ appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.” 24. Of course, it is true that this Court clearly laid down that there is nothing in the law that prohibits the State from constituting another body either to cross-check the correctness of the certificate issued by the Medical Board constituted under Rule 4 or otherwise independently examined the disability of a candidate. However, it is to be noted that, the 2010 prospectus expressly contemplated a provision to the effect that, the State Level Committee will have the powers to review the certificate issued by the District Medical Boards. Such a provision was also included in the subsequent prospectuses, including the one issued in the year, 2022 wherein the said provision was given emphasis to, by underlining the relevant portion. However, as far as the relevant clause in the 2024 prospectus is concerned, such a provision is conspicuously absent, which makes a huge difference. 25. Moreover, another distinguishing factor is that, now by virtue of the 2019 Regulations introduced in Appendix H, the Medical Council of India (the authority then existed), as per Notes 1 to 3 therein, insisted for the adoption of or adherence to the procedure and machinery contemplated in the RPwD Act, 2016, as far as the assessment of physical disability is concerned. As mentioned above, Notes 1 to 3 to Appendix-H of the 2019 notification of MCI specifically insist for the assessment of specified disability and the issuance of a certificate of disability in terms of the statutory stipulation contained in the RPwD Act, 2016 and the Rules framed thereunder. This is a crucial distinction that cannot be ignored while deciding the issue. This is a crucial distinction that cannot be ignored while deciding the issue. Since, the most competent authority to frame the guidelines for the reservation of physically disabled persons to the admission to MBBS course at the relevant time was undoubtedly the Medical Council of India and now the National Medical Commission, the fixation of criteria by the said authority with reference to the manner, procedure and the machinery contemplated under the RPwD Act cannot be ignored. 26. In this regard, the decision relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in Haryana Financial Corporation and Another v. Jagdamba Oil Mills and Another [2002)3 SCC 496] becomes relevant. The following observations were made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision: “19. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of courts are not to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the statute. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear. Judgments of courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for Judges to embark upon lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes, their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. In London Graving Dock Co. Ltd.v. Horton[ 1951 AC 737 : (1951) 2 All ER 1 (HL)] (at p. 761) Lord MacDermot observed : (All ER p. 14C-D) “The matter cannot, of course, be settled merely by treating the ipsissima verba of Willes, J., as though they were part of an Act of Parliament and applying the rules of interpretation appropriate thereto. This is not to detract from the great weight to be given to the language actually used by that most distinguished Judge.” 20. In Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co.[(1970) 2 All ER 294 : 1970 AC 1004 (HL)] Lord Reid said (at All ER p. 297g-h), “Lord Atkin's speech … is not to be treated as if it were a statutory definition. It will require qualification in new circumstances”. In Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co.[(1970) 2 All ER 294 : 1970 AC 1004 (HL)] Lord Reid said (at All ER p. 297g-h), “Lord Atkin's speech … is not to be treated as if it were a statutory definition. It will require qualification in new circumstances”. Megarry, J. in (1971) 1 WLR 1062 observed: “One must not, of course, construe even a reserved judgment of even Russell, L.J. as if it were an Act of Parliament.” And, in Herrington v. British Railways Board [ (1972) 2 WLR 537 [sub nom British Railway Board v. Herrington, (1972) 1 All ER 749 (HL)]] Lord Morris said : (All ER p. 761c) “There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or a judgment as though they were words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a particular case.” 21. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper. 22. The following words of Hidayatullah, J. in the matter of applying precedents have become locus classicus : (Abdul Kayoom v. CIT [ AIR 1962 SC 680 ], AIR p. 688, para 19) “19. … Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. In deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cardozo) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide, therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive.” *** “Precedent should be followed only so far as it marks the path of justice, but you must cut the dead wood and trim off the side branches else you will find yourself lost in thickets and branches. My plea is to keep the path to justice clear of obstructions which could impede it.” 27. My plea is to keep the path to justice clear of obstructions which could impede it.” 27. Thus, when the decision rendered by this Court in Aswathy's case (supra) is considered in the light of the aforesaid observations, on account of the factors referred to above which makes crucial distinctions with regard to the terms and conditions in the prospectus and other relevant aspects, I am of the view that, the principles laid down in Aswathy P.’s case (supra) as such cannot be made applicable. 28. The learned Government Pleader relied on yet another decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vidhi Himmat Katariya and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. [ (2019)10 SCC 20 ]. However, on examining the facts of the said case, it can be seen that, the question considered was mainly with regard to the suitability of the candidate to fulfill the obligations of the profession, which was found against the petitioner therein. Here, in this case, all the petitioners were found suitable for medical profession by the authorities created by the State Government, and therefore, the observations made in the said judgment cannot be applied in this case. 29. Another decision relied on by the learned Govt. Pleader is the judgment dated 7.10.2020 in WPC No.20760 of 2020 [Yadav S. Nair v. State of Kerala and Ors.]. However, it can be seen that, the said judgment was rendered by a learned Single Bench of this Court by following the observations made in Aswathy P's case (supra), which was already held to be not applicable to the facts of this case. 30. In the judgment dated 11.9.2018, in WP(C) No.23315/2018, yet another single bench of this Court considered a similar issue, and the claim of the petitioner therein was rejected by following the decision in Aswathy P's case (supra). Of course, in the said judgment, this Court referred to yet another decision rendered by a Division Bench in W.A.No.1852/2017, but from the observations made by the Division Bench in the said judgment, it can be seen that there also the writ petition was dismissed mainly on the ground that necessary parties were not impleaded and there was no challenge against prospectus. Even though an amendment was sought to be made in the writ petition by incorporating a challenge against the terms of the prospectus on the ground that the relevant clause in the prospectus was in conflict with the provisions in Section 16 of the RPwD Act, 2016, the same was rejected. The said contention was repelled by holding that, the terms of the prospectus are not in conflict with sections 16,17 and 18 of the RPwD Act, 2016. However, a contention as to the competence of the Government to constitute another body without following the procedure contemplated under the RPwD Act, for certifying the disability or the authority of such bodies to assess the degree of disability as against the assessment made by certifying authorities under the RPwD Act, 2016, was not specifically considered in the said judgment also. 31. Similarly, the reliance placed on by the learned Government Pleader on the observations made in the judgments in WP(C) No.16743/2019 and WP(C)No.39224/2022 also cannot be considered in favour of the State, in view of the fact that there also the decision was mainly relying upon the observations in Aswathy P's case (supra). Besides, the candidates were not considered in those cases mainly because of non- suitability, whereas, in this case, all the petitioners were found to be suitable for undergoing the MBBS course. Therefore, for those reasons, no reliance can be placed upon the same as well. 32. As far as the competence of the State Government to prescribe a separate authority is concerned, the learned Government Pleader could not point out any statutory provision which enabled them to constitute such an authority, as far as the assessment of the percentage of disability is concerned, by discarding the assessment made by the statutory authorities under the RPwD Act. It is to be noted that the RPwD Act is a special enactment brought into force to achieve a specific social object by following the mandate based on international treaties. It is discernible from the records that Act 1995 was superseded by introducing the RPwD Act 2016 based on the report of an expert committee specifically constituted for the said purpose. It is discernible from the records that Act 1995 was superseded by introducing the RPwD Act 2016 based on the report of an expert committee specifically constituted for the said purpose. Thus, after much deliberations and studies, the Central Government came out with the RPwD Act incorporating specific details of the procedure and machinery to be put in place for assessing, certifying and issuing the certificate of disabilities through competent authorities to be specifically constituted in this behalf. Thus, it is a special enactment to achieve the object of uplifting the physically disabled persons by providing equal opportunity to them and the provisions in the RPwD Act, 2016 were also insisted to be followed, as far as the assessment of the percentage of disability is concerned, as per the stipulations made in the regulations by the Medical Council of India as well, in the amendment regulations issued in 2019. Since the Medical Council of India(now NMC), the competent authority to take a decision in the matter of regulating the admission to medical courses, has adopted the procedure and machinery contemplated under the RPwD Act, 2019, to provide reservation to the physically disabled persons to the Medical Education, under no circumstances, the said procedure could be bypassed by following a procedure not contemplated under the Act. 33. Of course, it is true that the petitioners did not challenge the terms and conditions in the prospectus, even though the same specifically contemplates the constitution of the State Medical Board and State Level Committee. However, the important aspect to be noticed is that, mere absence of challenge of the said terms would not preclude the petitioners from pursuing the relief sought in these writ petitions. This is because, on carefully going through the terms and conditions of the prospectus, it can be seen that the same was issued in terms of the guidelines prescribed in this regard by the Medical Council of India. The regulations framed in this regard contemplate a further assessment of the eligibility/suitability of the candidates in terms of his/her capacity to fulfill the obligations of the medical profession. In Appendix H, while reiterating the procedure contemplated under the RPwD Act, criteria were also prescribed for assessing the suitability of the candidate as well. The regulations framed in this regard contemplate a further assessment of the eligibility/suitability of the candidates in terms of his/her capacity to fulfill the obligations of the medical profession. In Appendix H, while reiterating the procedure contemplated under the RPwD Act, criteria were also prescribed for assessing the suitability of the candidate as well. Therefore, the authorities constituted as per the prospectus can only be understood to be for the purpose of assessing the suitability of the candidates in the light of the criteria fixed as per the regulations of MCI dated 4.2.2019 and not to re-assess or supersede the assessments already made by the statutory authorities under the RPwD Act. In this regard, it is also to be noted that, unlike in the prospectuses issued in the previous years, the power to review the assessments made by the Medical Boards constituted under the Act is not specifically conferred upon the authorities referred to above, as per the terms and conditions in the prospectus 2024, which is a crucial aspect that cannot be ignored. Therefore, even going by the terms and conditions of the prospectus for the year 2024, nothing stands in the way of the petitioners in getting considered for reservation under the PwD quota. Hence, it was not necessary for them to challenge the terms and conditions in the prospectus. 34. Yet another contention raised by the learned Government Pleader is that, they came up with these writ petitions after they participated in the admission process knowing the terms and conditions of the prospectus and hence they cannot now turn around and challenge the decisions taken in this regard by the authorities concerned. The said contention is also to be rejected due to the very same reasoning mentioned in the above para. Since it was found that the purpose of the constitution of the State Medical Board and State Level Committee can only be for the purpose of assessment of suitability, they were not expected to challenge the same before they were excluded from the category list. 35. The learned Government Pleader further raised an objection that the State Medical Board and State Level Committee were not made parties to the writ petition, and hence, the reliefs sought cannot be considered. 35. The learned Government Pleader further raised an objection that the State Medical Board and State Level Committee were not made parties to the writ petition, and hence, the reliefs sought cannot be considered. It was also contended that, as far as the assessment of disability is concerned, same is a matter of expertise exercised by the authorities constituted in this regard, and this Court cannot sit in appeal over such decisions. However, here, what is under challenge is not the percentage of disability assessed by the authorities referred to in the prospectus, but the challenge is with respect to the competence of the State Government to create a parallel mechanism not contemplated under the RPwD Act or the sustainability of the acts of the authorities in relying upon the assessment of disability made by an authority not constituted as per the provision of the RPwD Act in suppression of the certification already made by the competent authorities under the statute. In this case, it is already found that the Government cannot notify an authority to assess the percentage of disability otherwise than contemplated under the RPwD Act, and the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations could not have relied on any certificate superseding the certificate issued by the competent authorities under the RPwD Act, 2016. Apart from the above, while re-assessing the percentage of disability of the petitioners and finding them not eligible for the PwD quota, the State Medical Board, as well as the State Level Committee, were exceeding their jurisdiction, as they were competent to decide only the suitability of the candidates, as no specific powers are conferred upon them to supersede or review the assessment of the percentage of disability already made by the certifying authorities under the RPwD Act. Even though, it is mentioned in the prospectus that, the State Medical Board can consider the degree of disability, that by itself cannot be accepted as it lacks any statutory backup. 36. Yet another contention raised by the learned Government Pleader is that, as per Rule 19 of RPwD Rules 2017, what is conferred upon the persons with disabilities is only to “apply for” the facilities, concessions and benefits admissible for such persons and the same does not confer an absolute right to get the reservation. However, I am not inclined to accept the said contention as well. However, I am not inclined to accept the said contention as well. This is because, merely because the said rule used the expression “entitled to apply”, it cannot be concluded that the right conferred is only to apply and not to get it. Apparently, such an expression is used mainly in view of the fact that while considering the eligibility of a candidate with disability, to get an employment or admission to a particular course, before considering him/her, it is to be ensured that it may be possible for him/her to meet the requirements of such employment or course. To be precise, even if the person is entitled to reservation, his/her eligibility to get admission or employment, would be subject to his/her suitably to the same. The test to be applied is whether it is possible for him/her to undertake the responsibilities, even with the physical disability he/she is suffering from. Once such a candidate is found suitable/eligible for the employment or course even with his/her disabilities, he/she gets the right to be considered for the same subject to merits. 37. In such circumstances, the irresistible conclusion possible is that the petitioners could not have been excluded from the category of physically disabled persons for admission to the MBBS course without taking into account the statutory certification of the petitioners as per the provisions of the RPwD Act, 2016. Therefore, the category list prepared by the Commissioner for Entrance Examination is to be interfered with to that extent. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are disposed of directing the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations to re-consider the eligibility of the petitioners on the basis of the certificates issued to them by the ‘certifying authority’ as contemplated under section 57 of the RPwD Act, 2016 and if they satisfy the criteria of benchmark disability as per the RPwD Act,2016, they shall be included in the said category, subject to their merits including the score they have obtained in the NEET examinations. The same shall be done as expeditiously as possible by ensuring that, their opportunities to get admission for this year, are not denied, if they are found eligible and the Commissioner of Entrance Examination is directed to consider their claim expeditiously by providing opportunities to them to produce their statutory certificates issued by the certifying authorities under the RPwD Act, 2016.