IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 25519 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- TISSA.K.JOY,AGED 17 YEARS D/O.K.J.JOY, KOYIKKARA VEEDU, MARUTHORVATTOM PO, CHERTHALA ALAPPUZHA REPRESENTED BY THE FATHER, AS NEXT FRIEND BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SMT.VIDYA MANUVILSAN SRI.JETTIN.K.J. RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMS, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001 2. DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. GIRI, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 25519 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a physically handicapped person. She applied for admission to the Medical/Engineering/Agricultural courses. She was requested to appear before an expert committee on 12.06.08 for assessing her disability as per Ext.P3. She did so. She then opted for the Agricultural and Allied course and Veterinary course which according to her is suitable for a physically disabled person like her. She registered her option and by Ext.P4 the petitioner has been given a key number also. But she could not get her name registered. She filed Ext.P5 pointing out these aspects. By Ext.P7 this Court directed the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner’s case sympathetically on the basis of Ext.P3. Pursuant to that, Ext.P8 order was passed rejecting the petitioner’s claim. Ext.P8 is under challenge in this Writ Petition. The operative portion of Ext.P8 reads as follows: “The 1st respondent has examined the Ext.P5 representation in detail on the basis of the Medical Inspection Report and the opinion of the Board. The W.P.C.No. 25519 OF 2008 -:2:- State Level Medical Board has examined the candidate on 12.06.08 and found that she has more than 40% physical disability but not fit to undergo any Medical/Agricultural courses. She has qualified only in Medical Entrance Examination with ranks 31643 and 31733 in Medical and Ayurveda respectively. As she is not fit to undergo any Medical/Agricultural courses, on the basis of the opinion of the State Level Medical Board, she is not eligible to give any options” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent. In the counter it is stated that the opinion of the medical board is considered as a reason to take a decision as taken in Ext.P8. According to the 1st respondent, though the State Level Committee which met on 12.06.08 opined that the petitioner is not eligible for getting admission in Medical course, special invitee representing the agricultural faculty who was in the Board further opined that the petitioner is not eligible for agricultural course also. Accordingly, it is on this premise Ext.P9 is issued. 3. Petitioner has filed a reply affidavit and produced a copy of the certificate given by the Medical Inspection Board. The medical teams have only opined that the petitioner is not eligible for medical W.P.C.No. 25519 OF 2008 -:3:- course. They could have opined that the petitioner is not eligible for other courses also. That is not done. If that be so, then there is no warrant for treating the petitioner as ineligible for agricultural courses also. 4. In the result, Ext.P8 is set aside and the 1st respondent is directed to consider Ext.P5 afresh, after obtaining a fresh opinion from the Medical Board as to whether the petitioner is in any manner ineligible or unfit for prosecuting an agricultural course. This shall be done within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the medical board gives an opinion in favour of the petitioner, consequential action shall be taken by the 1st respondent without any further delay. Interim order already passed shall continue until a fresh decision is taken by the 1st respondent as aforementioned. (V. GIRI, JUDGE) ttb W.P.C.No. 25519 OF 2008 -:4:-