ANJALI SONKAR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Miss. Anmol Sharma, Advocate for Respondent No.2/UOI. Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas, Advocate for Respondent No.5. Heard on I.A. No.1/2022 which is an application for grant of interim relief/stay.

(2.) The issue which has been brought before us at this present moment for interim relief on the ground that the petitioner who appeared in the National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test (NEET) of the year 2022-23 got qualified and applied for to be considered under the PwD Category (Person with Disability) as she is having a disability to the extent of 40% vide Annexure P-5. It is further been submitted that at this stage one seat in the PwD Category is still lying vacant in the same medical college wherein the allotment was given to the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner was denied on the ground that the certificate submitted by the petitioner was that of 'District Medical Board', Rajnandgaon and it was not accepted by the college on the ground that as per Chhattisgarh Chikitsa, Dant Chikitsa Evam Bhowtik Chikitsa (Physiotherapy) Snatak Pravesh Niyam, 2018 (in short 'the Rules, 2018') it was more than three months old prior to date of registration and as per the format attached to the Rules, 2018, certificate should have been issued by the Chhattisgarh State Medical Board. It is further been submitted that as an interim measure as of now, the petitioner may be directed to be examined by the State Medical Board as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Dolly Chhanda Vs. Chairman, JEE {(2005) 9 SCC 779} which envisaged that every infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature. He also refers to an order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Nikhil Kumar Naik Versus Union of India and ors. {WPC No.5207 of 2022, decided on 2/12/2022} wherein in the similar issue the Division Bench has observed that certificate which is more than three months old cannot be rejected outrightly and allowed the petitioner to participate in the second round of the counselling. He would further submit that even certain part of the Rules are ultra vires, it would be subject matter of the final adjudication. He also refers to the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the matter of Vikas Kumar Versus Union Public Service Commission and Others {(2021) 5 SCC 370} and would submit that such distinction cannot be carved out to grant the benefit of disability and it cannot be taken away as it would be against the spirit of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (for short 'the Act, 2016').

(3.) Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that as per the Rules, 2018 the last date of registration for counselling was of 28/10/2022 and prior to that the petitioner should be in hold of the certificate issued by the State Medical Board and extension of time cannot be made as held by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Shiva Chauhan Versus The State of Chhattisgarh and ors. {WPC No. 4675 of 2022, decided on 14/11/2022}. He would further submit that the case of Dolly Chhanda (supra) would also not be applicable as the judgment speaks about when the person is in possession of the necessary certificate on the last date. He would further submit that as per the Rules, 2018 if certain certificate is issued subsequently by the State Medical Board, it would not be applicable as per Clause 7 (iii) of the Rules, 2018.