High Court Kerala High Court

Tissa.K.Joy vs The Commissioner For Entrance on 6 November, 2008

Kerala High Court
Tissa.K.Joy vs The Commissioner For Entrance on 6 November, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 25519 of 2008(K)


1. TISSA.K.JOY,AGED 17 YEARS
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE
                       ...       Respondent

2. DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION

3. STATE OF KERALA

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI

 Dated :06/11/2008

 O R D E R
                                   V. GIRI, J.
              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                      W.P.(C) No. 25519 OF 2008
              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
              Dated this the 6th day of November, 2008

                                  JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a physically handicapped person. She applied for

admission to the Medical/Engineering/Agricultural courses. She was

requested to appear before an expert committee on 12.06.08 for

assessing her disability as per Ext.P3. She did so. She then opted

for the Agricultural and Allied course and Veterinary course which

according to her is suitable for a physically disabled person like her.

She registered her option and by Ext.P4 the petitioner has been

given a key number also. But she could not get her name registered.

She filed Ext.P5 pointing out these aspects. By Ext.P7 this Court

directed the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner’s case

sympathetically on the basis of Ext.P3. Pursuant to that, Ext.P8

order was passed rejecting the petitioner’s claim. Ext.P8 is under

challenge in this Writ Petition. The operative portion of Ext.P8 reads

as follows:

“The 1st respondent has examined the Ext.P5

representation in detail on the basis of the Medical

Inspection Report and the opinion of the Board. The

W.P.C.No. 25519 OF 2008
-:2:-

State Level Medical Board has examined the candidate

on 12.06.08 and found that she has more than 40%

physical disability but not fit to undergo any

Medical/Agricultural courses. She has qualified only in

Medical Entrance Examination with ranks 31643 and

31733 in Medical and Ayurveda respectively. As she is

not fit to undergo any Medical/Agricultural courses, on

the basis of the opinion of the State Level Medical

Board, she is not eligible to give any options”

2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent. In

the counter it is stated that the opinion of the medical board is

considered as a reason to take a decision as taken in Ext.P8.

According to the 1st respondent, though the State Level Committee

which met on 12.06.08 opined that the petitioner is not eligible for

getting admission in Medical course, special invitee representing the

agricultural faculty who was in the Board further opined that the

petitioner is not eligible for agricultural course also. Accordingly, it is

on this premise Ext.P9 is issued.

3. Petitioner has filed a reply affidavit and produced a copy of

the certificate given by the Medical Inspection Board. The medical

teams have only opined that the petitioner is not eligible for medical

W.P.C.No. 25519 OF 2008
-:3:-

course. They could have opined that the petitioner is not eligible for

other courses also. That is not done. If that be so, then there is no

warrant for treating the petitioner as ineligible for agricultural courses

also.

4. In the result, Ext.P8 is set aside and the 1st respondent is

directed to consider Ext.P5 afresh, after obtaining a fresh opinion

from the Medical Board as to whether the petitioner is in any manner

ineligible or unfit for prosecuting an agricultural course. This shall be

done within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment. If the medical board gives an opinion in favour of the

petitioner, consequential action shall be taken by the 1st respondent

without any further delay. Interim order already passed shall

continue until a fresh decision is taken by the 1st respondent as

aforementioned.

(V. GIRI, JUDGE)

ttb

W.P.C.No. 25519 OF 2008
-:4:-