High CourtsDivision Bench(2022) 03 KAR CK 0045

Kumar Ishwar vs Notational Medical Commission (Formerly Known As Medical Council Of India) & Others

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 24 March 2022

HON’BLE JUDGES
H.T. Narendra Prasad, J · Rajendra Badamikar, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 100603 Of 2022 (EDN-MED)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 562 words

H.T. Narendra Prasad, J

1.

In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief:

i. Issue writ of certiorari or any other order or direction, quashing the impugned list of UGNEET-2021 PWD candidate eligibility list webhosted/published by the respondent no.2 as per Annexure-N in so far as it relates to the petitioner at Sl.no.57.

ii. issue writ of mandamus or any other order or direction, directing the respondent no.2 authority to consider the candidature of the petitioner under Physically Disabled (PH) quota for seeking admission to MBBS course by taking into consideration of the disability certificates issued by the competent medical boards as per Annexures-E And H, and to allot the MBBS seat to the petitioner in PH quota.

2.

The case of the petitioner is that he has suffering from visual impairment. The petitioner has produced the disability certificate issued by the Goa Medical College wherein it is referred that the visual impairment of the petitioner is to the extent of 40%. The petitioner has also produced the certificate issued by the District Hospital, Belagavi, wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner is suffering 40% visual disability. When the petitioner has participated in National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) for MBBS Course. The Committee constituted by the Karnataka Examination Authority, as per the Karnataka Education Institution (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984, has examined the petitioner and issued a certificate that the visual disability of the petitioner is less than 10%. The case of the petitioner under the said category has been rejected. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court.

3.

This Court by order dated 15.03.2022 directed the Regional Institute of MINTO Ophthalmic Hospital, Bengaluru, to examine the petitioner’s visual disability and to submit a report. In pursuance of the order dated 15.03.2022, a report has been submitted by the MINTO Opthalmic Hospital, Bangalore.

4.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that now a Notification has been issued for MOP-UP Round which commences on 25th March 2022 and 28th March 2022 and that the petitioner may be permitted to appear for MOP-Up Round. The counsel appearing for the respondents has also no objection to permit the petitioner to appear for the MOP-UP Round.

5.

In view of the above, the petitioner is permitted to appear for the counselling to be held for admission to MBBS course in the category of persons under physical disability quota. The respondent authority can consider the report submitted by the MINTO Opthalmic Hospital, Bangalore, dated 19.03.2022 for considering the case of the petitioner for allotment of seats under physically disabled quota without referring to the earlier assessment of disability made by the Committee constituted by respondent Nos.2 and 3.

6.

Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to appear before respondent Nos.2 and 3 physically along with the report dated 19.03.2022 issued by the MINTO Opthalmic Hospital, Bangalore, on 25.03.2022 and the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to examine the report of the petitioner submitted by the MINTO Opthalmic Hospital, Bangalore, and consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law. For the said purpose, the Original Report has been handed over to the petitioner for producing the same during the MOP-UP Round and a copy has also been furnished to the counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed off.