Form body to adjudicate appeals against disability assessment board’s opinion: HC
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the constitution of an appellate body to adjudicate appeals against opinions of the disability assessment board.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Kshetarpal made it clear that the Medical Council of India and the National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences were required to constitute a body in terms of a recent Supreme Court within four weeks.
The direction came during the hearing of a petition filed against the Union of India and other respondents by two doctors through advocate Siddharth Gupta.
A qualified MBBS doctor from the SC category, one of the petitioners moved the HC after being declared medically unfit for pursuing an MS general surgery course. The petitioner, who completed his MBBS degree without any objections, challenged the medical fitness certificate issued against him, arguing it was discriminatory and misapplied guidelines meant for MBBS admissions under the disability quota.
The petitioner’s right-hand index finger was amputated due to an untoward incident in his early life, but he asserted that the disability did not impact his performance, efficiency or ability to perform as a doctor. He never availed of the “disability quota” either for MBBS admission or while securing the seat for the MS course.
But the impugned medical certificate issued by Pt BD Sharma PGIMS, Rohtak, declared him unfit, citing a notification meant exclusively for MBBS admissions under the disability quota. The petitioner contended these rules could not be applied to MD courses as these did not pertain to his case.
Acting on the plea, the court further directed the PGIMER, Chandigarh, to reassess the petitioner’s fitness through a fresh medical board, while ordering the constitution of an appellate body to address appeals against disability assessment board opinions.
Meanwhile, the petitioner’s admission remains provisional, pending further orders. “Any admission made against the seat allotted to the petitioner shall remain subject to outcome of this petition,” the Bench concluded.
