WP 5598/11 with CA 9675/11 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5598/2011 Snehal Milind Deshpande u/g of father Milind Bhaskarrao Deshpande V/s The State & others. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9675/2011 _______________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | Shri Vivek Dhage, Advocate for petitioner. Shri S.K. Tambe, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. Date: 23.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Civil Application No.9675/2011 filed by the petitioner is allowed. Amendment be carried out forthwith. The petitioner challenges the merit list published on 19.7.2011 by the respondents thereby declaring the petitioner to be unfit for WP 5598/11 with CA 9675/11 2 medical course. The petitioner is suffering from hearing impairment and is disable to the extent of 60%. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shaikh Roshan Jahan Jawwad Ahmed V/s State of Maharashtra & others in Writ Petition No.5900/2011 decided on 5.8.2011 at the principal seat, the respondents ought to have declared the petitioner as a fit candidate. The respondents have filed their affidavit in reply. From the affidavit in reply and the documents annexed thereto, it is seen that the MCI itself has framed the guidelines wherein it has been held that any persons with visual and hearing disability are not considered to be eligible for MBBS course. It further appears that the guidelines of the MCI are framed in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Deputy Secretary, Department of Health & others V/s Sanchita Biswas in CA No. WP 5598/11 with CA 9675/11 3 4604/2000. The Apex Court in the said case has observed thus: “It may be noticed that the Medical Council of India (MCI) who issues guidelines for admission to the medical courses in the country, in fact, had taken a decision on 5.11.1999 indicating that there cannot be any reservation for admission into the MBBS course and Post Graduate Medical Course for disabled persons, as provided in Section 39 of the Act. This decision, however, appears to have been reversed by the subsequent resolution of MCI dated 5.7.2001. Under the resolution dated 5.7.2001, it has been unequivocally indicated that 3% reservation for physically handicapped persons for admission into the medical courses should be followed excluding, however, for those who are visually handicapped and hearing defects.” In view of the specific pronouncement of the Apex Court, 3% reservation for physically handicapped persons should be followed excluding, however, for those who are visually handicapped and having hearing defects, we are not in a position to entertain the present writ petition. Insofar as the order passed by the principal seat at Mumbai is concerned, it is to be noted that in the said case, the person concerned was suffering from locomotor WP 5598/11 with CA 9675/11 4 disability and not hearing disability. The writ petition is, therefore, rejected. (M.T. Joshi, J.) (B.R. Gavai, J.) Dt/- 23.08.2011 ndk/c238117