NEET: Delhi HC orders MCC to ensure Provisions of Right of PwD Act are followed for Medical admissions
Delhi High Court
New Delhi: The Medical Counselling Committee, operative under Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MohFW) has been directed by the Delhi High Court to ensure that the provisions of the Right to Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 are followed in admissions to medical courses in future.
"...at present the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) is the authority in the matter of reservation, and consequential grant of admission by conducting the counselling. Therefore, it shall be the duty of the MCC to ensure that the provisions of the Act of 2016 are followed for admissions in future also," ordered the HC Division bench comprising Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad.
This direction has been issued by the HC bench while considering a plea filed by a medical aspirant who scored 631 marks in NEET UG 2020 examination. It was alleged by the petitioner that he was not granted admission in All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) even though he belonged to Scheduled Caste-Persons with Disability (SC-PwD) category.
While considering the matter, the HC bench observed that reservation was certainly provided for Persons with Disability (PwD) keeping in view the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
Dr. Harsh Pathak, appearing on behalf pointed out that the seats had been reserved keeping in view Section 32 of the Act of 2016 which provides that not less than 5% seats shall be reserved for persons with benchmark disability.
Earlier, the Single Judge bench had observed in its order dated 29.04.2021 that by that time the petitioner student had been granted admission in Vardhman Mahavir Medical College, under Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University.
Referring to the case, the division bench of the High Court noted that by now, the petitioner has already completed three years out of five years of studies. Therefore, the bench opined that at this juncture, directing AIIMS to consider the case of the petitioner and grant admission in AIIMS does not arise, especially while considering the statement made by the petitioner on 29.04.2021.
The counsel for the petitioner had submitted before the single-judge bench that while the petitioner did not press the prayer for admission to AIIMS, due to lapse of time, he wished to prosecute the matter as a Public Interest Litigation. This submission had been made by the petitioner as he submitted that the manner in which AIIMS provided reservations for Persons with Disabilities is entirely contrary to law. Accordingly, the Single Judge bench referred the matter to the Division Bench so that it can be heard as a Public Interest Litigation.
While considering the matter, the division bench of the HC observed that a 3200 pointer roster is prepared/ maintained, and in order to maintain 05% PwD roster every 20th sequence seat is reserved for a PwD candidate as per their mother category. It means, out of 100 candidates, 5 candidates will be from PwD category (from their mother category).
Further, the bench observed that 5% Horizontal PwD reservation is being provided in NEET-UG & PG counselling since 2016 keeping in view the Section 32 of the Act of 2016 in All India quota counselling.
Meanwhile, the counsel for AIIMS submitted that the statutory provisions as contained under the Act of 2016, specially in the matter of reservation as contained under Section 32 of the Act of 2016 are being followed, and shall be followed in future also.
At this outset, the bench observed that MCC is the authority in matter of reservation and mentioned in the order,
"It has been brought to notice of this Court, at this juncture, that at present the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) is the authority in the matter of reservation, and consequential grant of admission by conducting the counselling. Therefore, it shall be the duty of the MCC to ensure that the provisions of the Act of 2016 are followed for admissions in future also."
Disposing of the plea, the bench further noted,
"In light of the categoric undertaking given by the Learned Counsel for the Union of India as well as Learned Counsel for Respondent No.5 AIIMS, that the statutory provision as contained under the Act of 2016 shall be followed, no further orders are required to be passed in the present Writ Petition."
To view the HC order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/delhi-hc-order-210373.pdf
