Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

14. He thus prayed that the appeal be allowed and the respondent be directed to admit the appellant to the MBBS Course.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT:-

15. Mr. T. Singhdev, learned counsel for respondent no.1/National Medical Council (for short 'NMC') drew attention to sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the RPwD Act to submit that the Rules prescribed thereunder are in consonance with the said provision and the parameters set for evaluation of the persons with disability have been formulated keeping in view the aims and objects of the Act. He further elaborated by contending that sub-section (3) of Section 3 contains a rider that limits the scope of the first part of the said provision which prescribes that there shall be no discrimination on the ground of disability. He contended that the regulations which are prescribed are within the parameters restricted by the said rider.

21. In that view of the matter, he prayed that the present appeal be dismissed.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION:-

22. This Court has heard the arguments of Mr. Agarwal, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. T. Singhdev, learned counsel for respondent no.1/NMC, meticulously perused the record and considered the judgments relied upon by the parties.

23. At the outset, this Court records with certain pain that the appellant who comes from a deprived strata of the society, yet brilliant to the core, is 15:01:10 unable to give wings to his dreams. There are limitations which circumscribe the jurisdiction of Constitutional Courts lest the Court starts substituting its own opinion, contrary or otherwise, to the one rendered by a body constituting highly experienced professionals who are experts in their line.