Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. Per contra, Mr. Jitesh Vikram Srivastava, counsel for Respondents No. 1 and 3, opposes the prayers and places on record a document containing inputs on behalf of the said Respondents, which has been handed over across the board. The same is taken on record. Additionally, Mr. T. Singhdev, Advocate, standing counsel for NMC (which although is not a party to the petition), was requested to assist the court, and has also been heard at length. His written submissions have been received by e-mail and are also taken on record.

9. Mr. Singhdev argues that Petitioner was denied admission in accordance with the extant norms for reservation of PwD candidates. He explains that the 5% reservation for PwD candidates in institutes of higher education stems from Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 (as amended on 05th February 2019 and 13th May 2019), formulated under Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, which enlists 'Mental Behaviour' as one of the 'disability types'. The amendment thereto dated 13th May 2019 is made vide the Graduate Medical Education Regulations (Amendment), 2019 ["Regulations"]. It introduces Appendix H-1, titled 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."

10. Mr. Singhdev points out that due to lack of objective methods to establish the extent of mental illness, reservation has not been provided to persons with medical illness disability degree of less than 40%. Further, persons with mental illness disability degree of more than 40% are not eligible to be admitted in the medical course itself. He further emphasises that the aforenoted Regulations are framed after considering expert reports and opinions, that are updated from time to time considering developing medical research.

11. Mr. Singhdev also places reliance on a decision of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dated 04th December, 2020 in Writ Petition No. 7915 of 2020 titled Purushottam S/o Bhausaheb Nawale v. UOI & Ors., and also upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 3523/2022 titled DT v. National Medical Commission & Anr., in both of which, a similar plea was rejected.