Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Disability chhattisgarh in Anjali Sonkar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 December, 2022Matching Fragments
Perusal of the above goes to show that it was recorded that there was no sufficient strength in the right hand and there was restriction in wrist movement. Both the hands are essential for pursuing medical course. Reference was made to Gazette of India (Extraordinary) Part III Section 4 No. 162, Page No. 02, Appendix H-1, dated 14.05.2019.
Though, the format of disability certificate to be issued by the State Medical Board in terms of the rules in force provides for percentage of disability to be indicated, in the report of the Chhattisgarh State Medical Board, the percentage of disability is not mentioned.
(t) "person with disability having high support needs"
means a person with benchmark disability certified under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 58 who needs high support;
(zc) "specified disability" means the disabilities as specified in the Schedule;
19. The Rules, 2017 named Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 was framed in exercise of power conferred by sub-sections (1) & (2) of Section 100 of the Act, 2016. Rule 18 of Rules, 2017 purports the issue of certificate of Anjali Sonkar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. disability and Rule 19 prescribed that certificate issued under Rule 18 to be generally valid for all purposes. Reading of the aforesaid rules would show that on receipt of an application under Rule 17, the medial 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. Perusal of medical certificate dated 27.12.2019 issued in Form-V by the District Medical Board, Rajnandgaon, which was submitted by the petitioner, described that the petitioner has 40% permanent locomotor disability. This certificate was issued to the petitioner though was dated 27.12.2019 but could not be given a precedent in view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Dolly Chhanda Vs. Chairman, JEE {(2005) 9 SCC 779} wherein the Court observed that every infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature. This Court in such background of the fact directed to verify the certificate about the authenticity and directed the petitioner by order dated 05.12.2022 to appear before the State Medical Board, wherein the petitioner was found to be disabled to the extent of 40% at the first instance.
24. Perusal of the certificate which was subsequently issued to the petitioner by the State Medical Board when is compared to the notification dated 13.05.2019 issued by the Government of India in type of disabilities clause 1 i.e. Anjali Sonkar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. locomotor disability in clause (f) which covers the amputation, poliomyelitis, etc. and both the hands intact, with intact sensations, sufficient strength and range of motion are essential to be considered eligible for medical course. In the disability range category which is under that head the eligible for medical course for PwD quota firstly should be less than 40% disability. Here the petitioner holds 40% disability and the second clause 40-80% disability is further defined that persons with more than 80% disability may also be allowed on case to case basis and their functional competency will be determined with the aid of assistive devices, if it is being used, to see if it is brought below 80% and whether they possess sufficient motor ability as required to pursue and complete the course satisfactorily. Consequently, the measurement specified disability cannot be read in isolation to disability range. It further do not make out a category for upper arm in totality.
35. The Supreme Court in Vikash Kumar (supra) observed that as a social construct, disability encompasses features broader and more comprehensive than a medical condition. In the instant case, disability was proved by the State Medical Anjali Sonkar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. Board which acknowledged the disability. The principle of reasonable accommodation is required to be applied for facilitating the development of the disabled.