Inadvertent Error Selecting Wrong Option In Application Form: Bombay High Court Directs Admission Of Disabled Candidate To MBBS Course
The Bombay High Court has directed a Government Medical College in Maharashtra to admit a candidate with disabilities to its MBBS course, who had inadvertently selected the 'no' option in the Persons with Disabilities (PwD) column of the online application form and as a result was not examined for his disability status.
The petitioner who suffers from a locomotor disability to the extent of 40% sought to direct the respondent-authorities to admit him to the MBBS course against the PwD-OBC quota.
The petitioner was provisionally admitted to the MBBS course at Government Medical College, Kudal, Sindhudurg through a Provisional Selection Letter issued by the State Common Entrance Test Cell, Maharashtra.
On 30 July, a notice was issued to the PwD candidates to make appointments with any of the nearest/feasible centres for disability certification
The petitioner had requested the Grant Government Medical College, J.J. Hospital that his disability position be certified. The College acknowledged his application and asked him to come for an examination on August 12. However, when the petitioner went to the College on this day, he was informed by the Head Clerk that he could not be examined because his online application form reflected that he did not belong to the PwD category.
This was because, in his online application form, the petitioner had mistakenly selected 'No' option against the column 'If you are a PwD Candidate'. The petitioner contended that his indication of 'No' was an inadvertent error.
There were two notices by the National Testing Agency (NTA) by which the candidates were allowed to correct any errors in the form. The petitioner however contended that he was not even aware of the inadvertent error.
A division bench of Justice M. S. Sonak and Jusitce Kamal Khata was satisfied with this explanation. The Court remarked “However, the Petitioner's explanation that he was not even aware of the inadvertent error deserves to be accepted, mainly because there is no dispute about the Petitioner being a PwD, and the Petitioner had nothing to gain through the evident and inadvertent error. The petitioner hails from a rural background. He belongs to the OBC category. He is PwD. All these factors are relevant for accepting the petitioner's explanation.”
The Court did not agree with the NTA's contention that the Government Medical College is not bound to admit the petitioner as he was unable to produce the PwD certificate before the cut-off date.
The Court observed that the petitioner did everything to obtain the verification certificate. It noted that he even personally visited the Grant Medical College requesting for issuance of the necessary certificate, but was turned down later by the institute.
It stated that there was no justification for the Grant Government Medical College not examining the petitioner. It noted that the College ignored the aspects of 'inclusive education' and 'reasonable accommodation' as provided in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
“There was no justification for the Grant Government Medical College, J.J. Hospital Compound, not examining the Petitioner and issuing the necessary PwD certificate. The Grant Government Medical College, J.J. Hospital Compound, acted as if the provisions of RPwD Act, 2016 mean nothing. The aspects of 'inclusive education' and 'reasonable accommodation' were ignored by this institution. In such circumstances, the Petitioner, who is more in the nature of the victim, can hardly be made to suffer any further.”
The Court further noted that through its interim order on 11 September, it had directed AIIPMR (All India Institute of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation) to examine the petitioner. AIIPMR examined him and concluded that he suffers from 40% locomotor disability and therefore, is eligible for admission as per the guidelines of the National Medical Commission (NMC).
The Court thus remarked “The contention about rules in the information brochure being mandatory have to be construed reasonably. The possession of the prescribed qualification or disability status is undoubtedly a mandatory requirement. However, proof or rather the mode of production of proof is directory.”
The Court referred to the Supreme Court case of Vashist Narayan Kumar vs the State of Bihar and Others (2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1), where the Supreme Court allowed the plea of a man who had qualified for the exam of Police Constable, but his candidature was rejected by authorities due to an inadvertent error mentioning the wrong date of birth in the application form. The Court had observed that the error in the application was trivial and did not play any part in the selection process.
In the present case, the High Court noted that the petitioner's error was bonafide and unintentional. It observed that he has neither secured any undue advantage nor misled any authorities. Further, the error has not caused or does not have the potential of causing any prejudice to any candidate interested in obtaining admission to the PwD-OBC category.
The Court thus held that the petitioner must be admitted at the Government Medical College. It directed the respondent-authorities to confirm the petitioner's provisional admission.
Case title: Shahid Akeel Shaikh vs. Union of India & ors. (Writ Petition No. 11807 of 2024)