ORDER : Challenging the Selection List dated 16.12.2024, published in the official website of the sixth respondent in www.tnmedicalselection.net in respect of the II Round PwD Counselling Scheduled for PG Degree/Diploma Courses in Tamil Nadu Government Medical Colleges, 2024-25 Session, held online from 14.12.2024 to 16.12.2024, the petitioner herein has come forward with the present petition. Further, he seeks a direction to the sixth respondent to conduct a fresh second round of counselling for Persons with Disabilities (PwD) candidates, without applying rule of reservation and to ensure filling up of the entire 60 vacancies reserved for Persons with Disabilities (PwD) from the eligible PwD candidates irrespective of non-service or in-service candidates. 2. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner as well as for the respondents. 3. The case in the nutshell is as follows: 3.1. The petitioner herein challenges the second-round counselling process for NEET PG 2024 admissions under the Persons with Disabilities (PwD) quota in Tamil Nadu Government Medical Colleges. The counselling conducted by the sixth respondent-Selection Committee, Directorate of Medical Education, Tamil Nadu was held online from 14.12.2024 to 16.12.2024 and the selection list was published on 16.12.2024. The petitioner, an eligible candidate under the PwD quota, contended that the application of communal reservation rules to this quota is in violation of Section 32 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 [in short referred to as “PwD Act”], as the provision mandates a minimum of 5% reservation for PwD candidates without any discrimination based on caste, community or other factors, treating them as a special category. 3.2. He further highlighted procedural irregularities in the second-round counselling. It is alleged that unfilled in-service seats from the first round were prematurely converted into general category seats instead of being carried forward for allocation to eligible non-service PwD candidates in subsequent rounds. This action, according to the petitioner, undermined the intent of the PwD reservation policy, as many eligible candidates were denied an opportunity to compete for these seats. Another major irregularity cited is the failure to disclose “virtual vacancies”, which should have been created when candidates upgraded their seats from the first round to the second round of counselling. The petitioner urged that these vacant seats were not properly made available for selection by PwD candidates, further reducing their chances of securing a seat. Another major irregularity cited is the failure to disclose “virtual vacancies”, which should have been created when candidates upgraded their seats from the first round to the second round of counselling. The petitioner urged that these vacant seats were not properly made available for selection by PwD candidates, further reducing their chances of securing a seat. The petitioner also pointed out that only a small fraction of the seats reserved for PwD candidates were filled, with most seats left unallocated due to the communal reservation rules and procedural lapses. As a result of these alleged violations and irregularities, the petitioner seeks the annulment of the second-round counselling results and to direct the sixth respondent to conduct a fresh counselling round exclusively for PwD candidates. This fresh round should be free from communal reservation rules and should ensure that all reserved seats are appropriately filled in accordance with the statutory provisions and the principles of fairness and equity. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the second round of counselling process for the PwD quota violated statutory and judicial mandates, depriving eligible candidates of fair opportunities. He argued that Section 32 of the PwD Act, explicitly provides for a minimum of 5% reservation for PwD candidates without any discrimination based on caste, community or other factors. He asserted that the sixth respondent's decision to apply communal reservation rules within this quota contradicts the law, as no provision in the Act or the admission prospectus mentions communal sub-categorization under the PwD reservation. 5. In support of his contentions, he drew the attention of this Court to the judicial precedents, including the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahesh Gupta & Ors. Vs. Yashwant Kumar Ahirwar & Ors. reported in 2007 (8) SCC 621 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that horizontal reservations, such as those for PwD, must be treated as distinct and cannot be subjected to vertical communal categorizations. The judgment emphasized that disabled individuals form a special class and should not be further divided based on caste, creed or religion. He also cited Union of India & Anr. Vs. National Federation of Blind & Ors. reported in 2013 (10) SCC 772 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that 50% ceiling on reservations under Article 16(4) applies only to vertical reservations and does not restrict horizontal reservations like those for PwD under Article 16(1). He also cited Union of India & Anr. Vs. National Federation of Blind & Ors. reported in 2013 (10) SCC 772 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that 50% ceiling on reservations under Article 16(4) applies only to vertical reservations and does not restrict horizontal reservations like those for PwD under Article 16(1). This judgment reinforces the petitioner's claim that communal reservation rules cannot override the statutory PwD quota. Similarly, in Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2016 (13) SCC 153 , the Court ruled that PwD reservations are based solely on the benchmark disability criteria, not on caste or community classifications. He further contended that the application of communal reservation within the PwD quota is a clear contravention of these binding precedents. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also highlighted procedural lapses including the premature conversion of unfilled in- service seats into the general category before completing PwD counselling rounds. He asserted that unfilled seats meant for in-service candidates should have been allocated to non-service PwD candidates before being converted, as per the spirit of Section 32 of the PwD Act. Additionally, he pointed out that the failure to disclose “virtual vacancies” created by seat upgrades from the first to the second round of counselling is in violation to Clause 26 of the prospectus, depriving eligible candidates of a fair chance to compete for these seats. This failure is particularly egregious as the petitioner was denied access to seats that should have been available under the PwD quota. 7. While concluding his arguments, the learned counsel pointed out that out of 60 seats reserved for PwD candidates, only nine were filled due to these irregularities, leaving the majority of seats unallocated and contended that this defeats the purpose of the statutory PwD reservation and reduces it to a mere formality. Citing the judgment in Siddaraju Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. [2020 (19) SCC 572] , which mandates strict compliance with the statutory provisions for PwD reservations, the petitioner argued that the sixth respondent's actions undermine the rights and opportunities guaranteed to PwD candidates. Accordingly, he seeks the annulment of the second-round counselling results and a directive to conduct a fresh counselling without applying communal reservation rules, ensuring compliance with the law and judicial precedents. 8. Accordingly, he seeks the annulment of the second-round counselling results and a directive to conduct a fresh counselling without applying communal reservation rules, ensuring compliance with the law and judicial precedents. 8. Per contra, the learned counsels of the respondents put forth the following arguments to support their stand: 8.1. The respondents, particularly, the sixth respondent (Selection Committee, Directorate of Medical Education, Tamil Nadu), argued that the second-round counselling for NEET PG 2024 admissions under the PwD quota was conducted in compliance with applicable rules and regulations. They stated that while Section 32 of the PwD Act, mandates a 5% reservation for PwD candidates, the reservation must be implemented along with the communal reservation policy mandated by Tamil Nadu's 69% reservation rule. This policy ensures equitable distribution of seats across Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and other communities and the respondents asserted that this approach does not conflict with the PwD reservation under the Act. 8.2. The learned counsel for the sixth respondent clarified that the first round of counselling was conducted without applying communal reservations to allow PwD candidates to participate solely on the basis of their merit and preferences. However, for subsequent rounds, the communal reservation policy was applied to ensure that the State's overall reservation framework was adhered to. They argued that this adjustment was necessary to balance the competing mandates of State reservation policies and PwD reservations, as outlined in the admission prospectus. 8.3. In response to the petitioner's allegation regarding the conversion of unfilled in-service seats to general category seats, the respondents contended that this was done to prevent seats from going unutilized and it was stated that the unfilled in-service seats were reallocated based on the communal reservation framework ensuring optimal utilization of seats and adherence to State policies. He also denied the allegation of procedural lapses in disclosing virtual vacancies created by seat upgrades, asserting that all vacancies were notified to eligible candidates during the second round of counselling. 8.4. In furtherance, he also argued that the petitioner's inability to secure a seat was due to his low rank and percentile score, which placed him at the bottom of the PwD merit list. In the first round, his preferred specialities were filled by higher-ranked candidates and in the second round, the lack of vacancies in his category under the communal reservation policy further limited his chances. In the first round, his preferred specialities were filled by higher-ranked candidates and in the second round, the lack of vacancies in his category under the communal reservation policy further limited his chances. The respondents asserted that the petitioner's demand to annul the second-round results and conduct fresh counselling without communal reservations is untenable, as the process was conducted lawfully and in accordance with State policy and admission guidelines. Hence, the learned counsel for the respondents seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition as the same lacks merit. 9. Considered the rival submissions made by the respective learned counsels and also perused the materials available on record. 10. This Court finds that the application of communal reservation within the PwD quota is not contrary to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. In K. Duraisamy v. State of Tamil Nadu [ 2001 (2) SCC 538 ] , the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows: i) The Government possesses the right and authority to decide from what sources the admissions in educational institutions or to particular disciplines and courses therein, have to be made and that too in what proportion. ii) That such allocation of seats in the form of fixation of quota is not to be equated with the usual form of communal reservation and therefore, the constitutional and legal considerations relevant to communal reservations are out of place while deciding the case based on such allocation of seats. iii) That such exclusive allocation and stipulation of a definite quota or number of seats between in-service and non-service or private candidates provided two separate channels of entry and a candidate belonging to one exclusive quota cannot claim to steal a march into another exclusive quota by advancing a claim based on merit. Inter-se merit of the candidates in each quota shall be determined based on the merit performance of the candidates belonging to that quota. iv) That the mere use of the word “reservation” per se is not decisive of the nature of allocation. Whether it is a reservation or an allocation of seats for the purpose of providing two separate and exclusive sources of entry would depend on the purpose and object with which the expression has been used and that would be determinative of the meaning, content and purport of the expression. Whether it is a reservation or an allocation of seats for the purpose of providing two separate and exclusive sources of entry would depend on the purpose and object with which the expression has been used and that would be determinative of the meaning, content and purport of the expression. Where the scheme envisages not a mere reservation but is one for classification of the sources from which admission is to be accorded, fixation of respective quota for such classified groups does not attract applicability of considerations relevant to reservation simpliciter. It is evident from the above-mentioned case that the Government has the authority to determine the sources and proportions for admissions and that such allocations, including communal reservations within specific quotas, do not violate constitutional or legal principles. The integration of communal reservation into the PwD quota reflects the State's policy objective to ensure equitable representation across social groups and does not dilute the intent of the PwD reservation. 11. Further, the petitioner's claim regarding procedural irregularities is not substantiated. The sixth respondent has shown that the unfilled in-service seats were converted into general category seats in accordance with established procedures to optimize seat utilization. The alleged non-disclosure of virtual vacancies was adequately addressed, as the respondents have demonstrated that all vacancies were notified to eligible candidates. The petitioner's exclusion from the second round of counselling was due to his rank and the limited availability of seats in his category and not due to any illegality in the process. 12. This Court is of the considered opinion that the counselling process conducted by the sixth respondent was lawful, transparent and in compliance with statutory provisions and State policies. The petitioner's grievances, while arising from the competitive nature of admissions, do not demonstrate any procedural or legal violation warranting interference by this Court. The reliance on K. Duraisamy's Case further supports the State's Authority to implement communal reservation within the PwD quota. 13. In view of the elaborate discussions of the matter and in the light of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as stated supra and the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as sought for by him. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition(s) is/are closed, if any. There shall be no orders as to costs.