STATE OF KERALA Vs. ADWAITHA. S

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals have been preferred against the common judgment in W.P.(C) No.29803 of 2024 and connected cases. The issue relates to the admission to the Medical and Allied courses for which a reservation is provided for persons with disabilities. Sec. 32 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (for short 'the Act') provides for reservation in higher educational institutions and it says that all Government institutions of higher education and other higher education institutions receiving aid from the Government shall reserve not less than five per cent seats for persons with benchmark disabilities. Sec. 2(r) of the Act defines "person with benchmark disabilities" as a person with not less than forty per cent of a specified disability where specified disability has not been defined in measurable terms and includes a person with disability where specified disability has been defined in measurable terms, as certified by the certifying authority. The "certifying authority" as per Sec. 2(e) means an authority designated under Sec. 57(1) of the Act. Sec. 57(1) says that the appropriate Government shall designate persons, having requisite qualifications and experience, as certifying authorities, who shall be competent to issue the certificate of disability. The State Government has, in terms of Sec. 57, designated certifying authorities.

(2.) The writ petitioners are persons in whose favour the certifying authorities have issued certificates of disability. The prospectus for admission to the Medical and Allied courses, in addition to what is stated in the Statute says that the applications which are to be uploaded need not annex the certificates which have been issued to show the physical disability status and all that is required is to indicate in the application that the benefit is being claimed. The prospectus further says that the State Medical Board constituted as per the Government Order dtd. 17/2/2020 will examine the degree of physical disability of the candidates, who are provisionally included in this category.

(3.) In the case of the writ petitioners, the State Medical Board so constituted, has taken a view that they are not eligible for applying under the category of physically disabled persons since their physical disability is less than forty per cent. It is aggrieved by such certification that the writ petitions were filed. The contention raised by the writ petitioners is that, when the Statute has prescribed the method of certifying a person with physical disability, an extra statutory method of assessment cannot be prescribed by the prospectus. It is pointed out that under the Statute, a person aggrieved by the certificate issued by the certifying authority has a right of appeal, while such a right is not available to a person, whose eligibility is decided by the State Medical Board constituted under the prospectus. It is hence submitted that what is being done is a review of a certificate which is already issued by the certifying Authority by another Board which is also constituted by the State Government. It is also pointed out that while performing such an exercise, there is no reasoning stated as to why the State Medical Board constituted as per the prospectus has deviated from the certification which has been granted by the certifying authority appointed under the Statute.