Judgment:
Ranjan Gogoi, J.
1. The writ petitioner is the father of one Bidyut Bikash Gogol who is a physically challenged person. The physical disability that the petitioner's son suffers from is loco-motor disablement of both the lower limbs. The petitioner's son appeared in the Common Entrance Examination for Admission to the M.B.B.S./BDS Course in the Medical Colleges of the State commencing the year 2004. He had applied against the seats reserved for physical disabled persons and on the basis of the written examination held, he was placed at Sl. No. 1 of the Merit list of physically disabled candidates. The petitioners son was called for interview/counseling, which was held on 26/27.7.2004 and in course of the interview, the son of the petitioner had placed before the Selection Board the identity Certificate issued by the District Level Medical Board as well as a certificate from the Head of the Department of Orthopedics Surgery of the Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh. Submission of both the aforesaid certificates are required under Rule 7(7) of the Rules governing admission to the Medical Colleges. Both the aforesaid certificates certify the percentage of physical disability of the petitioner's son to be 58. It must be put on record, at this stage that as per the Medical Council of India's guidelines, physically handicapped candidates having loco-motor disablement of the lower limbs would be entitled for admission, if the percentage of such disablement is between 50% and 70%. Though the certificates produced by the petitioner's son brought him within the parameters laid down in the Medical Council of India's guidelines, the Selection Board thought it proper to refer the case to a specially constituted Medical Board, which gave its opinion that the extent of physical disability suffered by the petitioner's son is not 58% but it is 75%. On the aforesaid basis, admission having been refused to the petitioner's son, the instant recourse to the writ remedy has been made by the petitioner on behalf of his teenaged son.
2. The stand of the official Respondents as projected in the affidavit filed is that admission to the petitioner's son had been refused; as the specially constituted Medical Board had found the extent of physical disability to be 75%, i.e., beyond the permissible limit, it is the further case of the Respondents that for the purpose cy revaluation of all orthopaedically handicapped candidates seeking medical admission, a Special Medical Board had been constituted to whom all such cases including that of the writ petitioner's son was referred and in the present case the decision not to admit the son of the writ petitioner was taken on the basis of the report of the said Medical Board and in conformity with the guidelines Issued by the Medical Council of India.
3. The extent of disability/handicap suffered by a candidate being in the ultimate analysis an opinion, though an opinion of the experts and in the present case there being two such conflicting medical opinions, this Court by its order dated 23.8.2004 had required the Professor of the Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Silchar Medical College to re-examine the matter and report back to the Court certifying the percentage of physical disability of the petitioner's son. The Professor and Head of the Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Silchar Medical College, acting in great promptitude had submitted a report in sealed cover, which, on being opened, has been found to contain a report recording the ultimate conclusion that the extent of physical disability of the petitioners son is indeed 75%, The question, therefore that confronts the Court is what is the eventual order that ought to be passed on the facts, as noted above.
4. The role of the Writ Court in matters pertaining to medical admission is a limited role, i.e., to oversee the actions of the duly Constituted Selection Board in admitting or refusing to admit students to the Medical Courses. The Court would certainly not convert itself into a super-admission, body to examine the correctness of the decisions taken at the levels at which such decisions are required to be taken. The primary concern of the Court would be to ensure that admissions in the Medical Colleges of the State are being conducted in a transparent and fair manner and only those, who deserve admission on the basis of the merit and other special circumstances, as may have been laid down, are admitted. In essence, the writ power would be available to check arbitrary conduct in the matter of admissions to the Medical Colleges in the State.
5. Having understood the parameters of the power of the Court, we may now proceed to examine what had happened in the present case. Though the petitioner's son had produced both the certificates as required under Rule 7(7) of the Rules, evidently the certificate of the State/District Level Medical Board as produced did not comply with the requirement Imposed by Rule 7(7) to the effect that the certificate must not be more than 3 months old. The said certificate was issued on 21.8.2002 and though valid for a period of 3 years, on the face of it, the requirement of the 'age' of the certificate, as spelt out by Rule 7(7) is not complied with. However, the other certificate from the Professor and Head of the Department of Orthopedic Surgery. Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh being dated 6.6.2004 satisfies the requirement of Rule 7(7). Even assuming that both the certificates produced by the petitioner's son in the counseling comply with the requirements of Rule 7(7), the question that would arise is whether the aforesaid certificates are so sacrosanct that the Selection Board would have no other option but to accept the same and proceed on that basis. Any interpretation, which would have the effect of reducing a High Powered Body like the Selection Board to a mere rubber stamp, must be avoided in a large number of cases pertaining to medical admission, the Selection Board has referred other certificates required to be produced by the candidates like caste certificate, permanent resident certificate, etc. for verification by the competent authority. In such a situation, this Court finds it difficult to hold that the certificates in proof of physical disability and the percentage of such disability suffered, as may be produced by a candidate under Rule 7(7), should be treated in a different manner. The specially constituted Medical Board, this Court understands, was required to examine the physical disability of a candidate, in case of a doubt being entertained by the Selection Board in this regard. When a physically disabled candidate presents himself at the interview/counseling in person and the Selection Board entertains an honest opinion that the physical disability suffered, as certified by the authorities contemplated by Rule 7(7), needs to be revaluated, surely, the Selection Board must be acknowledged to have the power to get the case re-examined. Such a power must be construed in favour of the Selection Board to maintain the high standards that the medical profession demands. In the present case, the specially constituted Medical Board was requested by the Selection Board to examine the petitioner's son and re-determine the extent of his physical disability. The result was adverse to the petitioner's son as the extent of disability was found to be 75%. The third opinion obtained at the instance of the Court fortifies the view taken by the specially constituted body in matters of determination of the extent of physical disability of a candidate, this Court has to go largely by the opinion of the experts and two such opinions having certified the extent of disability to be beyond what has been prescribed by the Medical Council of India in its guidelines, this Court would like to go by the preponderance of the views of the experts, as available. The percentage of disability of the petitioner's son being beyond what is permissible; the refusal of admission to him, unfortunate though as it is, cannot be remedied by the Court. The decision taken by the Selection Board on the basis of the opinion of the experts must be allowed to prevail.
6. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is inclined to take the view that the facts of the present case would not call for any interference with the decision of the Selection Board not to admit the petitioners son. This Writ Petition has to fall. It is accordingly dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.
7. The report of medical examination of the petitioner's son by the Professor and Head of the Department of Orthopedics Surgery, Silchar Medical College and his chosen nominee, who is also the Associate Professor of the Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Silchar Medical College, be kept on record.