Minor A.Divyarep. by her father and naturalguardian – Mr.Arun v. The Secretary to Government Department of Education Fort St.George Chennai – 600

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 8.9.2009CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANIW.P.No.17202 of 2009Minor A.Divyarep. by her father and naturalguardian – Mr.Arun,No.E-69, 15th 3rd Cross StreetPeriyar Nagar, Chennai – 600 082... PetitionerVs.1. The Secretary to Government Department of Education Fort St.George Chennai – 600 009.2. The Joint Director (Higher Secondary) Department of Government Examinations D.P.I. Campus, Chennai-600 006.3. The Director Directorate of Medical Education (Selection Committee), Kilpauk Chennai – 600 010.4. The Secretary to Government Department of Health Fort St.George Chennai – 600 009. .. RespondentsPRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India forissue of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entirerecords relating to the impugned order passed by the secondrespondent herein in Na.Ka.No.202124/H15/2009, dated 12.8.2009, toquash the same and to direct the third respondent herein to allot theseat to the petitioner in the first year MBBS Degree course for theacademic year 2009-10 in anyone of the Government or other MedicalColleges.For Petitioner:Mr.S.Arunkumar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Respondents:Mr.V.Arun Addl. Government PleaderORDERThe writ petitioner, who studied Plus 2 in Ewarts MatriculationHigher Secondary School, Chennai, in the examination held in March,2009 secured 86.41% of marks as follows:1.Tamil:178 out of 2002.English:176 out of 2003. Maths:166 out of 2004. Physics:174 out of 2005.Chemistry:157 out of 2006.Biology:186 out of 200Total:1037 out of 12002. The petitioner is physically disabled in her right hand andconsequently, was unable to write the examinations in the normalspeed. As per the report of the Medical Board of the GovernmentGeneral Hospital, Chennai-600 003, the petitioner was permitted to begiven 30 minutes to one hour extra time than the allotted time takingnote of her physical disability. She belongs to Scheduled Castecommunity and she studied with an aim of becoming a Doctor. She wasgiven only 30 minutes extra time for writing all the examinationswith the result she was able to secure only 86.41%. If only thepetitioner was given one hour time as found by the Medical Boardthere was possibility for her to have obtained more marks making hereligible for competing for admission to MBBS Course. In thecounselling for admission to the first year MBBS Course which tookplace from 6.7.2009 to 17.7.2009 she was allotted the registrationnumber in A.R.No.6669 and there was no possibility for her to getadmission in the first year MBBS Course for the academic year 2009-2010.3. It is the case of the petitioner that the Government Orderenables the respondents to give extra time up to one hour and if onlythe said period was given, being a physically disabled personbelonging to Scheduled Caste community, she would have secured goodmarks and thereby a fair chance for getting admitted in the firstyear MBBS Course. In this regard, it is seen that she has made arepresentation on 20.6.2009, i.e., after the examinations were over,results were declared and counselling was also completed. Since noorder was passed she approached this Court by way of a writ petitionin W.P.No.11747 of 2009 and this Court, by order dated 24.7.2009,directed the second respondent to pass appropriate orders andthereafter, the impugned order came to be passed by the secondrespondent which is challenged in this writ petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. A reference to the impugned order dated 12.8.2009 shows thatwhile it is true that as per the Medical Board report the petitionerwas entitled to extension of time from 30 minutes to one hour, thepetitioner who was given 30 minutes time has not raised any objectionand she has never stated either during the time of examination orimmediately thereafter that she should be given one hour as per themedical certificate. It is only after the examination results werepublished and the petitioner who tried for admission to first yearMBBS Course failed in her efforts, she made representation to therespondents which resulted in passing of the present impugned order.5. It is an admitted case that the mark sheet in respect of thePlus 2 examination conducted in March, 2009 was issued as early as14.5.2009. It is also not in dispute that neither at the time ofwriting of examination nor thereafter, i.e., before results werepublished, the petitioner has ever raised any objection that she wasunable to write examination as an usual candidate within the extendedtime of 30 minutes and she requires 30 minutes more. It is seen thatafter the results of the qualifying examination were declared inwhich she secured 86.41%, she applied for admission to first yearMBBS Course and she was called for counselling on 17.6.2009 and itwas only on 17.6.2009 when she understood that for the marks whichshe has secured she would not be selected for admission, sheimmediately made a representation to the second respondent on20.6.2009 stating that she should have been given 30 minutes more forwriting Plus 2 examinations.6. A reference to the Medical Certificate issued by the RegionalMedical Board of the Government General Hospital, Chennai-600 003 nodoubt shows that in the Plus 2 examination she could be given extratime of 30 minutes to one hour. Therefore, a discretion has beengiven to the Examiners to give 30 minutes time and thereafter up toone hour. It is for the Examiner to decide. It is not the case ofthe petitioner that during the time when she was writing examinationafter the extended period of 30 minutes she found it difficult towrite because of her disability and therefore, she required another30 minutes in order to have the benefit granted to the physicallydisabled person. In fact, while writing all the six papers she hasnever raised any objection that she requires 30 minutes more. As itis seen in the impugned order, the answer sheets were written not ina hurried manner and in usual manner the answer were given. In suchcircumstances, it is not possible to accept the contention of thelearned counsel for the petitioner that she should have been give onehour time, which is the maximum time. 7. A reference to the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.110, SchoolEducation V-1 Department, dated 17.7.2003 also makes it clear that inrespect of the students who are effected by Dyslexia certain https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ privileges have been given which includes the extension of time limitfor writing examination up to one hour. This certainly depends uponthe facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner as aphysically disabled person is certainly entitled to the extra time of30 minutes to one hour, provided when 30 minutes time has beengranted and she requires some more time to write the examination dueto her disability. In the absence of such a request being made bythe petitioner at the earliest point of time, it is not possible toaccept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner thatthe petitioner should have been given one hour time.In such view of the matter, I do not see any reason to interferewith the impugned order passed by the second respondent. The writpetition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar sasiTo:1. The Secretary to Government Department of Education Fort St.George Chennai – 600 009.2. The Joint Director (Higher Secondary) Department of Government Examinations D.P.I. Campus, Chennai-600 006.3. The Director Directorate of Medical Education (Selection Committee), Kilpauk Chennai – 600 010.4. The Secretary to Government Department of Health Fort St.George Chennai – 600 009.+ 1 cc to Mr.S.Arunkumar, Advocate, CC SR 45500+ 1 cc to Govt. Pleader CC SR 45137W.P.No.17202 of 2009RSY (CO)RH (17.9.09) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8.9.2009