Delhi High Court: In a case wherein the petitioner filed a writ petition to issue direction to the respondents to allow him to participate in the counselling process of NEET-UG 2023 examination and grant admission in the MBBS course against the quota of person with disability, Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.*, opined that disability certificate would have to be issued in accordance with the permissible disability and any inclusion or exclusion therein would not be permissible under the writ jurisdiction and refused to interfere with the instant petition.
Background
The petitioner submitted that pursuant to the information bulletin of NEET-UG examination, the petitioner applied for the candidature for MBBS course in 2023. The petitioner appeared in the examination and scored 234 out of 720 marks against unreserved Person with Disability (‘PWD’) category. Further, notification was issued, that enabled the candidates belonging to PWD category to have their disability assessed at the designated centers. Thereafter, the petitioner approached Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, Respondent 3, which issued a disability certificate holding that the petitioner was ineligible under the category of PWD quota by assessing zero percent disability.
The petitioner contended that he had been assessed under the wrong category i.e., Physical-Locomotor Disability, whereas the case of the petitioner falls under the category of Chronic Neurological Disability. Further, the petitioner also contended that the definition of disability was not exhaustive in nature and if the disability being suffered by the petitioner was of the nature of Chronic Neurological disabilities, the same must be included in the scope of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (‘the Act’), so as to fulfill the basic object of the Act.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that all Government and other higher educational institutions receiving aid from the Government shall reserve not less than 5 per cent seats for persons with benchmark disabilities and a bare perusal of the provisions under Section 32 of the Act would clearly indicate that all disabled candidates were not entitled for the benefit, and the disabled persons exclusively with benchmark disabilities were entitled for consideration.
The Court noted that the statutory scheduled appended to the Act had prescribed only two diseases as a disability for the purpose of Chronic Neurological conditions. The Court also noted that the Medical Council of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and with the previous sanction of the Central Government, had framed the regulations known as the Graduate Medical Education Regulations (Amendment), 2019 (‘2019 Regulations’). Under these 2019 Regulations, all persons who suffered from Multiple Sclerosis and Parkinson’s disease were not considered to be disabled. However, there was a limit prescribed, wherein the candidate who suffered with these two disabilities, lying between only 40 to 80 per cent disability, were entitled to be considered against the disabled category reservation.
The Court noted that in the present case, the rejection of the disability contained the reason that the petitioner was suffering with Locomotor Disability which was a physical disability. The same was also assessed as zero per cent, so no certificate was provided to the petitioner with respect to the disability suffered by the petitioner. The certificate would also indicate that based on the qualification of disability, the petitioner might be eligible to pursue medical education but could not be considered eligible to claim PWD reservation as per National Medical Commission norms.
Further, the Court opined that as per the settled position of law, the cardinal rule while interpreting the provisions of any statute would require this Court to construe the said provisions literally and grammatically giving the words their ordinary and natural meaning. The Court relied on Umed v. Raj Singh, (1975) 1 SCC 76 and opined that a simple scrutiny of Clause 25.1 of the Guidelines for the purpose of assessing the extent of specified disability in a person included under the Act (‘Guidelines 2018’) would indicate that the two diseases were mentioned in explicit terms and did not suffer from any ambiguity for the purpose of interpretation. Therefore, the said provision could not be considered an empty vessel where all the content could be poured in, rather it contained an exhaustive list in clear terms to attract literal interpretation corresponding to its plain meaning.
The Court opined that the petitioner was duly assessed for their benchmark disability at the designated hospital for medical examination regarding the certificate of disability. The said assessment held the petitioner was ineligible for the grant of reservation under the category of PWD quota with zero percent disability. Further relying on Buddhabhushan Anand Londhe v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2672 and Vidhi Himmat Katariya v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 10 SCC 20, the Court opined that the Court must be slow in interfering with such policy decisions taken by the concerned field experts under the writ jurisdiction.
Furthermore, the Court opined that there was not any reasonable justification to interfere in the writ petition. The disability certificate would have to be issued in accordance with the permissible disability and any inclusion or exclusion therein would not be permissible under the writ jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition.
[Sanyam Seth v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4697, decided on 26-07-2023]
*Judgment by- Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Abhilasha Yadav, Vishrut Relan, Urwashi Bhel and Akshat Advocates;
For the Respondents: Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC; Vanya Bajaj, Kashish G. Baweja, Advocates for Respondents 1 to 3 and 5; T. Singhdev, Anum Hussain, Abhijit Chakravarty, Bhanu Gulati, Tanishq Srivastava, Aabhaas Sukhramani and Ramanpreet Kaur, Advocates for Respondent 4.
