BINITA SENAPATHI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Ms application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to allot a seat in the MBBS Course for the Session 1999-2000 in any one of the Medical Colleges of Assam.

(2.) The facts briefly are that the state Government by notification dated 16.8.96 framed a set of rules for admission of students to MBBS/BDS Course in Medical Colleges of Assam and the Regional Dental College, Guwahati, called "The Medical College of Assam and Regional Dental College (Regulation of Admission of under Graduate Students) Rules, 1996 (for short "1996 Rules'"). Rule 6 of 1996 Rules provides for reservation of seats for various categories of candidates. Initially as the said rules stood, no reservation was provided for the candidates with physical disability. By notification dated 27.5.99, Clause -(K) in sub-rulle (1) of Rule 6 was inserted which was to the following effect :

(3.) In course of hearing records were produced before this Court to show that Mahananda Baishya had secured 72 percents and, therefore, he was placed above the petitioner in the merit list. Records were also produced to show that the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, Shri Bikash Jyoti Nath and Rashmi Ranjan Rajkhowa, had secured 30 and 33 marks respectively and were above the petitioner who had secured only 2 7 marks. It also appears from the copy of the certificate annexed to the Application for vacating the interim order filed by the respondent No. 3 Shri Bikash Jyoti Nath that he suffers from Poliomyclitis and was a candidate with disability and entitled to a seat reserved under rule 6(1)(k) of 1996 Rules. Records also have been produced before the Court by Mr. Talukdar and the Director of Medical Education, Assam, Prof. A.C. Bora, that the respondent No. 4, Raslimi Ranjan Rajkhowa was examined by the Medical Board and it was found that he was suffering from shortening of right lower limb and was orthopaedically handicapped. It has been further explained by Mr. Talukdar, G.A., Assam that the name of Mahananda Baishya who has secured 72 has been published in the Education Notice in the first position above the petitioner in the list of physically handicapped candidates. But the name of Rashmi Ranjan Rajkhowa who had secured 33 marks had not been published in the Education Notice as she had not furnished the certificate issued by the Orthopaedic Surgeon and she subsequently claimed a seat reserved for physically disabled candidates and she was examined by the Medical Board and on such examination she was found to be Orthopaedically handicapped entitled to a seat reserved for the physically handicapped persons and that her name found place in the second position of Admission Notice for the physically handicapped candidates. Mr, Talukdar further explained that the name of the respondent No. 3 Bikash Jyoti Nath had not been published in the Education Notice due to inadvertence although he had secured 30 which was more than 27 marks obtained by the petitioner and it is for this reason that a corrigendum was subsequently issued on 23.12.99 including the respondent No. 3 in the list of physically handicapped persons selected for admission into the MBBS course. It is clear from the aforesaid narration that the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and Mahananda Baishya had secured more marks than the petitioner and were also persons with disability and entitled to admission to the seats reserved for persons with disability under Rule 6(1 )(k) of the 1996 Rules. Thus, the admission of Mahananda Baishya, Shri Bikash Jyoti Nath (respondent No. 3) and Rashmi Ranjan Rajkhowa (respondent No. 4) cannot be set aside or quashed for giving admission to the petitioner.