Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(Emphasis supplied)
24. Mr. Singhdev, representing the MCI, contends - and we think he is right - that Clause 5(a)(iv) of the Information Bulletin governing the UG-NEET 2019 required two Disability Certificates to be obtained, by a candidate, before being allowed to join the MBBS course under the PWD category. In the first instance, all candidates, who considered themselves eligible for admission under the PWD category, were required to get themselves examined at any Government Medical College/District Hospital/Government Hospital.

31. In these circumstances, as correctly submitted by Mr. A. Mariarputham, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, the merits of the case of the petitioner would have to be independently examined, in the light of the law on the subject and rival submissions advanced by learned counsel.

Rival Submissions

32. We have heard, at length, Mr. A. Mariarputham, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as learned Counsel Mr.Mohinder J. S. Rupal for the University of Delhi, Mr. Anil Dabas for the Union of India, Mr. T. Singhdev for the MCI and Mr. Vibhor Garg for the AIIMS.

(Emphasis supplied)

(vii) In connection with this submission, Mr. Mariarputham submitted that the Janakpuri Super Speciality Hospital, which had issued the Disability Certificate dated 24 th April, 2016, was nominated as an authorised Hospital for issuance of certificate of disability, under the PWD Act, vide Notification dated 12th February, 2014, issued by the Department of Social Welfare, a copy of which has been placed on record. Mr. Singhdev, fairly, did not dispute the validity of the Disability Certificate dated 24th April, 2016, though he certainly disputes the entitlement, of the petitioner, to seek admission to the MBBS Course on the basis thereof.

34. The petitioner has placed reliance on the following authorities:

(i) Muskan Abdul Rahim Shaikh (Minor) v. State of Gujarat2, Order dt 18th September, 2018 in SLP (C) 24524/2018
(ii) Purswani Ashutosh (Minor) v. U.O.I.3,
(iii) Parmender Kumar v. State of Haryana4 and
(iv) Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi5

35. Arguing per contra, Mr. Singhdev, learned counsel for the MCI, emphasises the fact that, as per the Information Bulletin issued by the NTA and governing admission to medical courses following the UG- NEET 2019, the candidate was required to obtain two Disability Certificates, of which the second Disability Certificate, which was required to be obtained in the eventuality of the candidate being selected to the MBBS Course, was required to be issued by the VMMC Hospital. The Disability Certificate of the VMMC Hospital having certified the petitioner was suffering from disability in excess of 80%, Mr. Singhdev submitted that it was not possible to allow the petitioner to join the MBBS course. Mr. Singhdev submits that the Regulations which would apply would be those which were in force on the date of admission of the student, and not on the date of submission of application. Mr. Singhdev places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vidhi Himmat Katariya v. State of Gujarat6 and the judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan in Manohar Lal Swami v. State of Rajasthan7. He finally submits that the AIIMS has been notified as one of the institutions, which are competent to issue Certificate of Disability under the RPWD Act, vide Circular, dated 2nd May, 2019, of the Health and Family Welfare 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1717 (2012) 1 SCC 177 (2008) 7 SCC 11 2019 SCC OnLine 1318 MANU/RH/0866/2019 Department, GNCTD, which has been placed on record. Mr. Mariarputham does not, needless to say, dispute this position. Mr. Singhdev submits that, as the AIIMS, which is a competent authority in this regard, has certified the petitioner was suffering from disability in excess of 80%, he cannot be allowed to join the MBBS Course.