Doubt on Disability Percentage: Bombay HC denies relief to BDS aspirant

Mumbai: Observing that there were a lot of doubt about the percentage of the hearing disability suffered by a BDS aspirant, the Bombay High Court recently dismissed his plea and denied providing him any relief.

This came after the HC bench comprising of Justice Sunil B. Shukre noted that while one of the disability certificates showed that the aspirant had disability to the extent of 65% of the total body parts, other certificates showed it to be 60% and 35%.

"From perusal of all the certificates submitted by the Petitioner, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that there is a whole lot of doubt about percentage of the hearing disability suffered by the Petitioner and, in these circumstances, we do not think that the order, to which an exception has been taken in this petition, which order is of the date of 16 February 2022, can be said to be erroneous. Of course, this order dated 16 February 2022, declaring the Petitioner to be not eligible for seeking admission to BDS Course, has been passed much before the disability certificate was issued by Ali Yavar Jung Hospital. But, as stated earlier, even the disability certificates relied upon by the Petitioner do not unequivocally state about the percentage of hearing disability suffered by the Petitioner," noted the HC bench as it dismissed the plea.

The case concerned a aspirant with alleged hearing disability. His admission to BDS course in the CAP Round-1 was cancelled on the ground that the disability certificates issued by him were not reliable. However, the petitioner aspirant approached the Bombay High Court challenging the order of Department of Medical Education, Maharashtra and contended that he was erroneously found to be ineligible for BDS admission.

Also Read: MUHS offers relief to students after SC restricts admission at Dhule Medical College

He also relied on his disability certificate, which was issued by a designated centre, Ali Yavar Jung Hospital and it had certified that the BDS aspirant had the hearing disability as of permanent nature to the extent of 60% of the total body parts of the Petitioner.

Although the petitioner student had sought for an interim relief, the HC bench denied such relief after taking note of the fact that there was a doubt about the correctness of the disability certificates relied upon by the petitioner. 

The bench noted that while the disability certificate issued by Medical Authority Thane on 24 April 2019 showed that the Petitioner had 65% permanent hearing loss and his disability was to the extent of 65%, another certificate of disability dated 24 April 2019 issued by Dr. M. A. Azmi showed that the Petitioner's hearing loss was to the extent of 35%.

Referring to this, the bench noted, "Thus, we find that the disability certificates relied upon by the Petitioner are incompatible with each other and, hence, none of them is reliable."

At this outset, the counsel for the petitioner student submitted that the certificate dated 24 April 2019 contained an inadvertent mistake in mentioning the percentage of the disability and this certificate was based upon the disability certificate bearing No. MH2130420000059270 and this can be verified from the certificate iitself, where the doctor has mentioned the same certificate number, which has been issued by Thane Medical Authority.

However, after carefully considering the disability certificated dated 24 April, the bench noted, "We have carefully considered the disability certificate dated 24 April 2019 issued by Thane Medical Authority and also the certificate of disability dated 24 April 2019 issued by Dr. M. A. Azmi. We have already stated about the variance between the two certificates, the former giving percentage of hearing disability as 65 and the latter giving percentage of disability as 35. The question is as to whether or not the latter certificate mentions the percentage of disability mistakenly. Answer would have to be found out by considering the surrounding circumstances."

Therefore, the bench referred to the memo of the petition and observed, "Now, if we look into the memo of petition, we would find that the Petitioner has not made any averment regarding the mistake committed by Dr. M. A. Azmi in mentioning the percentage of hearing disability in the certificate issued by him. The Petitioner has not filed on record any affidavit of Dr. M. A. Azmi admitting the mistake committed by him. It is also not the case of the Petitioner that the certificate dated 24 April 2019 has been withdrawn by Dr. M. A. Azmi and Dr. M. A. Azmi has, thereafter, issued a corrected disability certificate."

To read the HC order, click on the link below.

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/bombay-hc-disability-174669.pdf

Also Read: HC allows NEET candidate to appear in Mop Up Round, slams authorities for issuing disability certificate without guidelines