The Karnataka High Court issued a notice to the St John's National Academy of Health Sciences and the Office of the State Commission for Persons with Disabilities on a petition by a research student who claimed he faced discrimination because of his disability and community.
Justice B V Nagarathna was hearing a petition filed by Dr Jeffery Pardeep Raj, a differently-abled student who urged the court to order the institute to allow him access to all infrastructure, research institute, hospital and patients.
The court stated in its order that the student shall be permitted to reside on the campus and have access to all infrastructure and facilities as well as the official e-mail of the institute until further orders.
The petitioner, after completing his bachelor's degree, joined the institution for a masters in pharmacology under general merit quota in 2015-16. During admission for MD in pharmacology with the institution, the petitioner was not in a position to bear the entire tuition fee and requested for a waiver. The petitioner was made to give an undertaking that 50% of the fee will be paid after completion of post-graduation by working for a period of 12 months as a senior resident at the institution's medical college.
As a senior resident, the petitioner began preparing for his research project 'Turmacin' which was accepted by the Head of the Department on the ground that the petitioner will not be made the principal investigator and the project can be executed only by accessing the infrastructure of the institution's medical college.
He contended that the institution did not make him the principal investigator by discriminating against him for his disability and community as he is a Protestant Christian.
When the petitioner applied for the position of senior resident, the institution replied there were no vacancies and hence cannot employ him. The institution also demanded that the petitioner pay the balance tuition fee.
The institution said the petitioner will be evicted from the accommodation and denied access to college campus.
The petitioner had contended that the institution had given an undertaking on November 24, 2016, that the petitioner is entitled to accommodation within the campus. However, the academy denied the benefit of accommodation. He also had to face harassment from some faculty members.