HC Relief to MBBS Student with Cerebral Palsy Seeking Compensatory Time During Exams
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Amaravati: Granting relief to a second-year MBBS student, suffering from cerebral palsy, the Andhra Pradesh High Court granted her additional compensatory time during examinations, on the account of her disability.
Even though the petitioner was granted 1 hour of extra time initially, it was found inadequate for the petitioner. Therefore, the Court granted another 30 minutes of extra time to her.
Allowing the petitioner 4.5 hours of time instead of 3 hours to complete all the examinations concerning the MBBS course until the completion of the course, Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad observed, "The success of the Writ Petitioner in the first year MBBS examinations after availing the compensatory time of 30 minutes made it evident that the extra 30 minutes was the one that made all the differences for the Writ Petitioner to succeed in the first year MBBS examinations. Although, it was stated by the learned Single Judge that it was not a binding precedent, the case of the Writ Petitioner is required to be assessed and evaluated based on the success in the first year MBBS examinations after availing the extra time."
"Having regard to the interpretation given by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in respect of the socially beneficial laws governing the differently abled persons, this Court does not find any reason to reject the request made by the Writ Petitioner inasmuch as the Writ Petitioner was able to utilise the extra time that was given by this Court on the earlier occasion and pass the 1st year MBBS Examinations," it further observed.
Also Read: MBBS: NMC to define non-negotiable competencies for safe medical practice
After analysing the various judgments issued by the Supreme Court, the HC bench comprising Justice Prasad opined that reasonable approximations should be made to give benefit to an individual with any kind of benchmark disability rather than looking for any precision with regard to the degree of disability of an individual since assessment to arrive at such precision goes counter to the provisions of the RPwD Act, 2016.
The matter concerned a second-year MBBS student at Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam, affiliated to Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences. Since the student is suffering from Cerebral Palsy, a certificate was issued to her mentioning that she was suffering from physical (Locomotor/Orthopaedic) disability affecting the Bilateral Lower Limbs. Such a disability severely affects the ability to complete written examinations within stipulated duration, submitted the petitioner.
It was further submitted that the petitioner's disability, having been classified as a "Benchmark Disability" under the RPwD Act, 2016, made her eligible for special accommodations in examination and accordingly she was given 60 minutes of extra time in addition to the regular duration of time fixed for examinations i.e. three hours.
However, when the petitioner tried to write the answer script within four hours of duration, she could not succeed because of the fact that she was unable to complete even by utilizing the extra hour granted to her. Therefore, she approached the HC bench, and through an order dated 29.02.2024, the court granted her an additional 30 minutes to her in addition to one extra hour. With the help of the extra time, the petitioner cleared the first-year examination.
Since the order dated 29.02.2024 was limited to the first-year examination only, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences denied extending the similar benefit for the second-year exam also, which is scheduled to commence from 07.04.2025 and the subsequent years of the MBBS course.
Apart from seeking similar relief from the HC bench, the petitioner also prayed to the Court to set aside the memo issued by the University declaring it as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India besides being in violation of the provisions enshrined in the RPwD Act and the Supreme Court's judgment in Vikash Kumar Vs. Union Public Service Commission and Ors.
Further, the plea also sought the grant of an additional 30 minutes of time for the second-year examinations and all upcoming examinations till the completion of the course.
It was argued by the petitioner that the RPwD Act, 2016 is a beneficial social legislation aiming to enable the disabled persons to come into the mainstream, Section 2(y) of which prescribes for "reasonable accommodation" which she was entitled to.
The petitioner contended that "Reasonable accommodation" under the said provision entails necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments, without imposing a disproportionate or undue burden in a particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise of rights equally with others.
On the other hand, defending its memo, the University argued that the previous order of the High Court was restricted to only the first-year of exam and was not applicable to the forthcoming exams. Additionally, it was contended that based on the description of the disability as mentioned in the 'Certificate for Persons with Disability', it could not be said that the petitioner suffered from any Locomotor Disability in the upper part of the body and that the disability was of the nature of physical disability (Locomotor/Orthopedic), in relation to her Bilateral Lower Limb and Impaired Reach.
Further, it was argued that the percentage of disability was 60% which meant that the petitioner could perform work by manipulating fingers, lifting, bending, sitting and standing.
However, the Court rejected the University's argument that the petitioner did not suffer from any disability in the upper body. The bench noted that the Medical Assessment was done by three doctors belonging to the Departments of Orthopedics, Department of Ophthalmology and Department of Dermatology.
"Having noticed the constitution of the above Board, it is evident that the Medical Board constituted for examining a person suffering from the disability of the „Cerebral Palsy‟ is defective inasmuch as atleast one Member of the Board ought to have been from the Department of Neurology. In any case, doctors from the Departments of Ophthalmology and Dermatology are certainly not competent to evaluate the nature of disability of a person affected by „Cerebral Palsy‟," observed the bench.
"Therefore, this Court is unable to countenance as to how the Doctors with Diploma in Ophthalmology, Diploma in Dermatology, Venereology and Leprosy and M.S. (Orthopedics) could have assessed the neurology disorder, if any, of the Writ Petitioner. Therefore, the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No.2 that the Writ Petitioner does not suffer from any disability insofar as the upper body is concerned, as assessed by the Medical Board (consisting of one Dermatologist and one Ophthalmologist out of the three experts) cannot be accepted," it further noted.
"The „birth injury‟ leading to „Cerebral Palsy‟, to the „elementary knowledge‟ of this Court, would occur on account of the Neurological system being affected. Although this Court, does not have the expertise to state as to how the Writ Petitioner is neurologically affected, suffice it to state that the Medical Board constituted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh to examine a person with disability of „Cerebral Palsy‟ is certainly irregular and improper which goes to the very root of the matter and therefore is defective," observed the High Court bench.
Relying on the previous order of the Supreme Court, the bench opined that the reasonable approximations should be made so as to give benefit to an individual suffering with any kind of benchmark disability rather than looking for any precision with regard to the degree of disability of an individual
"In any case, this Court, having analysed various Judgments rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the aforesaid Paragraphs, is of the view that the reasonable approximations should be made so as to give benefit to an individual suffering with any kind of benchmark disability rather than looking for any precision with regard to the degree of disability of an individual inasmuch as assessment to arrive at such precision goes counter to the provisions of the RPwD Act, 2016," it noted.
Accordingly, allowing the plea, the Court directed the University to grant the petitioner compensatory time of 30 minutes in addition to one hour for every three hours for the second year MBBS examinations as well as the other MBBS examinations until the she completes her course.
To view the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/andhra-pradesh-hc-282176.pdf
