Sudhanshu S/O Hansraj Jambhulkar v. State Common Entrance Test Cell, Maha. Neet (Ug), Thr. Its Chairman, Mumbai And ORS.

1 WP-5233-2023.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.5233 of 2023 Sudhanshu S/o Hansraj Jambhulkar

Versus

State Common Entrance Test Cell, Maharashtra, NEET (UG), through its Chairman and others Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court'

s orders of directions Court' s or Judge'

s order and Registrar'

s orders.

Shri N.R. Saboo, Counsel for Petitioner.

Shri N.A. Gaikwad, Counsel for Respondent No.1. Shri A.A. Madiwale, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent No.2. Shri N.S. Deshpande, Deputy Solicitor General of India for Respondent No.3. CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI , JJ.

ATE : 25 th AUGUST, .

1.

Heard.

2.

The petitioner by relying upon the disability certificate dated 11-4-2023 identifying his sickle cell disease disability at 45% submits that he be permitted to undergo the medical assessment for quantification of his disability at the other designated Disability Certification Center since the certificate of disability for NEET Admission dated 13-7-2023 has assessed his disability at 35%. The petitioner seeks to rely upon the Notification dated 4-1-2018 as well the Information Bulletin with regard to admission to Under-Graduate Medical Courses. Since the disability certificate 11-4-2023 indicates higher disability, it is submitted that the subsequent certificate issued by the Disability Board constituted by AIIMS should be disregarded.

3.

On perusal of the documents filed alongwith the writ petition as well as the record produced by the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, we find that the Disability Board has conducted various tests before assessing the disability at 35%. The documents produced/tests conducted while assessing the petitioner's disability at 45% are not on record. There is no material to hold that the subsequent certificate issued by the designated Disability Certification Centre assessing the disability at the lower percentage should be disregarded to permit another assessment at some other designated Disability Certification Centre. Such exercise also does not find place in the Notification dated 4-1-2018 or the

2 WP-5233-2023.odt Rights of Persons with the Disabilities Act, 2016. In that view of the matter, we do not find any reason to invoke the writ jurisdiction. 4.

The writ petition is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. (MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.) LANJEWAR