IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6187 of 2011 Suraj Prakash (Minor) through his father Dr. Guru Dayal Kumar Sinha, S/o late Dr. M. Dayal, Additional Medical Officer In Charge, Primary Health Centre, Sonbarsa, P.O. and P.S.- Sonbarsa, District-Sitamarhi. .......Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, through the Chairman, Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board, IAS Association Building, Near Airport, Patna. 2. Controller of Examination, Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board, IAS Association Building, Near Airport, Patna. 3. Medical Council of India, Pocket 14 Sector 8, Dwarka, New Delhi-110077. ......Respondents ----------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Surendra Mishra, Adv. Mr. Ranjit Sinha, Adv. For M.C.I.:- Mr. Kumar Brijnandan, Adv. 04 30.06.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for M.C.I. and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner, admittedly, as per his declaration suffers from low vision disabilities, having 40% permanent visual impediment. In view of the said physical disability he comes within the definition of a disabled person as per the “The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation)Act, 1995” (hereinafter referred to as the 'Disabilities Act'). He claims benefit of reservation in 2 consonance with the Disabilities Act. 3% reservation is provided for in the Disabilities Act. In the medical admission which was conducted by the Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Board for the year 2011, petitioner was not given the benefit under the category of visually impaired person. He wants a direction upon the respondents to accommodate him in that particular category. The definition section which is section 2 (I) defines disabilities of various kinds and 'low vision' is also one of the categories of disability. Contention of the counsel, therefore, is that under the Disabilities Act he ought to have been given the benefit which has not been done by the respondents either by providing for the same in the prospectus which was issued or by accepting the claim of the petitioner, which was raised before them. In other words, according to the petitioner there is violation of a statutory obligation on the part of the Board as well as may be M.C.I. Though no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Medical Council of India, but the Court has been addressed by the counsel representing M.C.I., on the issue. The 3 submission is in support of the stand taken by the Board in the counter affidavit because the Board has brought on record the various decisions and the guidelines which have been issued by the M.C.I. in this regard. Main issue is whether the petitioner can claim reservation separately under the definition of the Disabilities Act under 'low vision category'. Counsel for the Board submits that there is a provision of 3% reservation for persons suffering from disability but even in the said reservation the reservation is not available to all the persons suffering from every kind of disability. Looking at the nature of the responsibility of the profession, the Medical Council of India after taking into consideration various decisions rendered by Courts of law, including the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rekha Tyagi and Ors. Vrs. The Vice-Chancellor, University of Delhi and Ors. has decided that only persons suffering from disability of locomotion to the extent permissible can be allowed to avail the benefit of reservation under disability quota. It categorically decided to keep two kinds of disability out of the purview of reservation 4 which included persons with low visual as well as hearing problems. The stand of the counsel representing Bihar Board, therefore, is that the reservation of the 3% has already been provided for in the prospectus and to that extent, the Board has not violated any statutory mandate. But when it comes down to extending the benefit to the petitioner or accepting his claim there is some difficulty, because there is an obligation on the part of the Board to follow the guidelines of the M.C.I. and the decision not to extend the benefit of reservation under the Disabilities Act to people suffering from low vision or hearing impediment has been upheld to be valid and logical by the Apex Court. If the Hon'ble Supreme Court has already upheld the decision of the M.C.I. not to extend the benefit of reservation under the category the petitioner comes then he cannot be extended any relief by this Court on that count. Learned counsel for the Board, further submits that the petitioner was aware of the ground reality because in the application form filled by him it does indicate that he was not 5 looking for any benefit under disability quota because the answer to the question “do you claim D.Q.(Disable Quota)” the answer given by the petitioner is “no”. In other words, it is not that the petitioner was not aware that he cannot beget the benefit of reservation under the disability quota but still he took a chance and now is before the Court to assail or overcome the impediment in his way to claim such benefit. In above stated circumstances, the writ application seems to be misdirected, if not motivated. No relief, as such, can be given to the petitioner. In this above stated circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed. Safik (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)