BENNY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IS the action of the State Government in not making any reservation for the handicapped persons for admission to the Post Graduate Courses in Medicine, Surgery etc. violative of S. 39 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this set of three cases. Learned counsel for the parties have referred to the facts in W.A.No.3660 of 2001. These may be briefly noticed.

(2.) THE appellant is physically handicapped. He was afflicted with Polio. It had left him with a handicap of 60% in the legs. Despite the handicap, the appellant had graduated in Medicine from the Calicut University in 1994. He had completed the requisite internship in November 1995. On December 5, 1995 he was registered as a Medical Practitioner with the Medical Council.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the learned single Judge, the writ petitioner filed the appeal. When the matter was posted before a Division Bench, reference was made to the decision in Mary Joseph's case. The correctness of the view was challenged. The Division Bench, after hearing the learned counsel, felt that if the interpretation as placed in Mary Joseph's case was upheld, S. 39 "would be rendered otiose and nugatory." Thus, the Bench ordered that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice for constitution of a larger Bench. This is how the matter has been placed before this Bench.