CHAIRMAN,ODISHA JT.ENTRANCE EXMAMINATION Vs. JASOBANTA NAYAK & ORS.
Supreme Court of India
Appeal (Civil), 288-289 of 2016, Judgment Date: Jan 18, 2016
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.288-289 OF 2016
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.33583-33584 OF 2012)
Chairman, Odisha Joint Entrance Appellant(s)
Examination
Versus
Jasobanta Nayak and Others Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
2. The present appeals are directed by way of special leave
petitions against the judgement and order dated 17th October, 2012,
passed in W.P.(C) No.14456 of 2012, by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack.
3. The respondent No.1 herein had appeared in the Odisha Joint
Entrance Examination 2012 for admission into engineering course. He was
assigned the rank at Sl. No.16871 in the general category and placed at
No.80 under the physically challenged category for admission into the
engineering course. As the respondent No.1 was physically handicapped, he
had filed a certificate issued from the District Head Quarters Hospital,
Balasore, Odisha, which had mentioned that he was visually disabled by 40%.
Needless to say, visual 40% disability enables a candidate to be
considered in the physically handicapped category.
4. It is submitted by Mr. Milind Kumar, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant that the order passed by the High Court suffers from
grave illegality inasmuch as it has observed that the respondent No.1 was
directed to produce the physically handicapped certificate, though the
prospectus clearly prohibits for filing of such certificate. It is urged
by him that the Board that was constituted as per the stipulations
prescribed in the prospectus, had found that the respondent No.1 had 20%
visual disability and not 40% and, in such a case, the High Court should
not have placed reliance on the certificate issued by the District Head
Quarters Hospital, Balasore, by opining that there is no reason to
disbelieve the same.
5. Ms. Nidhi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1,
has supported the order passed by the High Court.
6. To appreciate the controversy, we may with profit refer to
Clause 2.1.4. of the prospectus, which reads as follows:
“2.1.4. 3% of seats are reserved for Physically Challenged candidates
for admission to B. Tech/B. Arch / MBA / MCA / PGDM / PGCM / PGDM (Exe) /
B. Pharm courses. the candidates with 40% disabilities in consonance with
section – 39 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal opportunities,
Protection of Rights and Full participation) Act, 1995, are eligible to be
considered under Physically Challenged Category for admission to B. Tech /
B. Arch / MBA / PGDM / PGCM / PGDM (Exe) / B. Pharm courses.
3% of total MBBS and BDS seats are reserved for persons with
disabilities and they have to meet the medical standard of Locomotory
disability of lower limbs between 50 to 70% (% of disability may vary
subject to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court).
The medical standard of PC category candidates will be decided
by a medical board specifically constituted with Senior Professors of the
premier medical college and hospital : SCB Medical College, Cuttack, and
Chairman, OJE – 2012 or his representative under the Chairmanship of
Principal, SCB Medical College or his nominee, that they are eligible to be
categorized as Physically Challenged candidates and capable of undergoing
each part of the requirements for B. Tech / B. Arch / MBBS / BDS / MBA /
MCA / PGDM / PGCM (Exe) / B. Pharm. The decision of this Board will be
final and binding. They SHOULD NOT therefore, submit along with the
application form any medical certificate to the effect that they are
physically challenged.
Further, for MBBS/BDS stream, the candidates claiming
locomotory disability of lower limbs are only eligible for consideration.
Visually handicapped and hearing disabled candidates are not eligible as
stipulated by Medical Council of India.”
[Emphasis supplied]
7. On a perusal of the aforesaid clause, it is perceivable that
the candidates should not submit along with application form, any medical
certificate to the effect that they are physically challenged. The High
Court, as we find from the order impugned, has stated, as a matter of fact,
that the candidates were directed to produce the physically handicapped
certificate. The said finding, being contrary to the postulates in the
prospectus is absolutely unsupportable.
8. It needs no special emphasis to state that the percentage of
disability has to be determined by the Medical Board, which is specifically
mentioned in the prospectus. The said Board consisting of Dean &
Principal, S.C.B. Medical College, Cuttack, and two Assistant Professors,
Department of Ophthalmology, S.C.B. Medical College, Cuttack, has assessed
the disability of vision of the respondent No.1 on 16th June, 2012, at 20%
and issued the certificate. Be it noted, the certificate granted by the
District Head Quarters Hospital, Balasore, was 40%. A Court cannot assess
the percentage of disability. As per the prospectus, the Medical Board has
to be constituted consisting of senior Professors of the S.C.B. Medical
College, Cuttack and Chairman, OJEE – 2012 or his representative under the
Chairmanship of Principal, S.C.B. Medical College or his nominee. The
Medical Board has been constituted as per the norms of prospectus and it
has clearly recorded its opinion as regards the disability of vision of the
respondent. In such a situation, we are constrained to hold that the High
Court was not justified in interfering with the selection process in
exercise of writ jurisdiction and declaring the disability of the
respondent No.1 at 40% and to consider his case in the category of
physically handicapped persons. The approach being erroneous, the order is
wholly untenable.
9. Resultantly, the appeals are allowed and the order passed by
the High Court is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.
......................J.
(Dipak Misra)
......................J.
(N.V. Ramana)
New Delhi;
January 18, 2016.
For the Latest Updates
Join Now