New Delhi: The Supreme Court bench recently denied providing relief to a medical aspirant who was willing to pursue the MBBS course with 80% disability.
While the aspirant had approached the Supreme Court assailing the Kerala HC order, which had denied any relief to the candidate, the Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices M.R Shah and B.V. Nagarathna also held that the candidate was unfit to pursue the UG medical course.
Dismissing the plea, the bench noted, "Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and considering the opinion given by the Medical Board that the petitioner is having 80% disability and, therefore, he is unfit to pursue and complete the MBBS curriculam, the learned Single Judge has rightly denied the relief of admission which is rightly confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court."
Such observations came from the Supreme Court while considering the plea by the medical aspirant having 80% disability. The petitioner, who is suffering from MeningoMyclac (Post Surgical) with Paraplegia locomotive disability of lower limbs, to the extent of 60%, had earlier approached the Kerala High Court seeking permission to get admitted in the MBBS curriculum under the earmarked PWD quota.
The petitioner had appeared in the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) UG - 2019 for admission to MBBS and allied courses and had obtained 58.76 percentile.
Also Read: Doubt on Disability Percentage: Bombay HC denies relief to BDS aspirant
As per the Regulation 4(3) of the Regulation on Graduate Medical Education, aspirants with more than 80% disability, are ineligible for admission. On the other hand, those within the disability range of 40 -80% can be considered but their functional competency would have to be determined.
If assistive devices are used, the Medical Board would be required to assess whether the aspirant in the PWD quota possess sufficient motor ability as required, to pursue and complete the course satisfactorily.
However, in the case of the petitioner aspirant, the report given by the Medical Board on 29.05.2019 mentioned that his disability was at 85% and therefore he was ineligible to pursue the MBBS curriculum.
Following this, another board had been constituted and the Board determined the petitioner aspirant's disability at 80%. The Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation expert however opined that the student will not be able to give basic life saving procedure like Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) and other procedures mentioned in the MBBS curriculum. From the neurological side, the expert was of the opinion that it would be difficult for the student to pursue and complete the course satisfactorily. Further, the Orthopaedic Professor in the Medical Board opined that the student would not be able to fulfill all the requirements of the curriculum of the MBBS course.
The Government pleader had submitted before the High Court that for disability level of 80%, the authority will have the power to consider the capability or the suitability of the candidate, in accordance with the prospectus. From the assessment of the petitioner aspirant that he would not be able to complete the MBBS curriculum.
Accepting the contentions and also referring to Clause 5.3
of the Prospectus for Kerala Engineering, Architect and Medical Courses (KEAM) - 2019, which would show that besides satisfying the benchmark eligibility criteria, an aspirant would also have to satisfy the test of being physically capable or suitable, to undertake the MBBS course, the learned Judge had observed that the student was medically unfit, to pursue the MBBS studies.Assailing this judgment, the aspirant reached the Division bench as well and the division bench had noted, "According to us, the precise reason for determining the unsuitability of the student to pursue the MBBS course is reflected by the Medical Board and this is consistent with the parameters indicated in the Prospectus. Moreover, the court should not substitute its own views when the opinion of the Medical Board is available on the issue. The experts from different medical discipline examined the extent of disability and determined in the Ext.R1(e) report that the petitioner will not be able to provide basic life saving procedure and it will be difficult for the 80% disabled aspirant to pursue and complete the MBBS curriculum. If such be the categorical opinion of the Medical Board constituted on court's order and the Prospectus permits determination of suitability to satisfactorily pursue the course, the denial of admission to the PWD quota seat for the appellant, cannot in our assessment, be faulted."
Aggrieved, the petitioner had moved to the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court bench upheld the order of the High Court and noted, "Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and considering the opinion given by the Medical Board that the petitioner is having 80% disability and, therefore, he is unfit to pursue and complete the MBBS curriculam, the learned Single Judge has rightly denied the relief of admission which is rightly confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court."
To read the HC order, click on the link below.
To read the Supreme Court order, click on the link below.
Disclaimer: This website is primarily for healthcare professionals. The content here does not replace medical advice and should not be used as medical, diagnostic, endorsement, treatment, or prescription advice. Medical science evolves rapidly, and we strive to keep our information current. If you find any discrepancies, please contact us at corrections@medicaldialogues.in. Read our Correction Policy here. Nothing here should be used as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We do not endorse any healthcare advice that contradicts a physician's guidance. Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Advertisement Policy. For more details, read our Full Disclaimer here.
NOTE: Join us in combating medical misinformation. If you encounter a questionable health, medical, or medical education claim, email us at factcheck@medicaldialogues.in for evaluation.