IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2008 / 18TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 20239 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ MUHAMMED SUBAIR.T, S/O.KUNHIMOHAMMED, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, CHERUKARA.P.O, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.DEVIDAS.U.K RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN:695 001. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT HOSPITAL, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 20239 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 9th July, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a candidate who applied for admission to professional courses in Kerala for the year 2008, claiming reservation as a person with disabilities. His claim for reservation as a person with disability was rejected on the ground that the petitioner's disability was less than 40%. The petitioner submits that this cannot be true because as evidenced by Ext. P3, the petitioner had sought admission last year also and he had been admitted to B. Pham. Course under the reservation category of persons with disabilities. According to the petitioner, when, for last year, he was given admission on the ground that he had 40% disability, he cannot now be denied admission on the ground that he did not have 40% disability, which is the criteria fixed for becoming eligible for admission under the persons with disability quota. 2. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that although as per the report of the Medical Team convened by the Entrance Commissioner, who examined the petitioner, his speech disability has been given as 25%, the real reason for not recommending him under the quota prescribed for persons with disability is that with the speech disability, the petitioner will not be able to prosecute studies in any of the professional courses. However, that is not the ground mentioned in Ext. P6. The only ground is that his disability is less than 40%. Therefore the reason for rejection in Ext. P6 is clearly unsustainable in view of the fact that for the previous year, the expert medical committee constituted by the Entrance Commissioner himself had selected the petitioner in the persons with disabilities quota and he had in fact been given admission to B. Pham. Course. In fact, it is not disputed before me that the petitioner has been given admission in B. Pham. course. It is W.P.C. No. 20239/2008. -: 2 :- beyond comprehension as to how, if the petitioner can prosecute studies in B. Pham. Course, why he cannot prosecute studies for other courses. Any way, that is a matter which the 1st respondent has to decide in accordance with law. However, the petitioner cannot be denied admission in the persons with disabilities quota on the ground that the petitioner does not have 40% disability. Accordingly, Ext. P6 to the extent it relates to the petitioner is quashed and the 1st respondent is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for admission in the persons with disabilities quota as if the petitioner has 40% disability as certified last year. Orders in this regard shall be passed within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is allowed as above. Issue photo copy urgently. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.