The writ petition was filed by Mr. T, who had completed his MBBS degree from China in 2019 and cleared the Foreign Medical Graduate Examination in 2020. In 2021, he met with a road accident and suffered a left above-elbow amputation, leaving him with a one-arm disability amounting to 90%. In 2024, he appeared for NEET PG and secured an All-India Rank of 50,084. Invoking the 5% reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities under Section 32(1) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, he applied for admission in postgraduate medical courses. However, despite meeting the benchmark disability criteria, the authorities declared him functionally unfit to pursue postgraduate medical studies.
An interim order of the court directed him to undergo reassessment at JIPMER, where a medical board concluded that although he could not be substantially productive in MD Microbiology (the course he initially qualified for), he could effectively pursue eight other postgraduate courses, namely Psychiatry, Radiation Oncology, Preventive and Social Medicine, Hospital Administration, Health Administration, Public Health, Pharmacology, and Biochemistry.
The petitioner argued that the authorities had adopted a rigid and exclusionary approach by not considering his functional ability pragmatically. He submitted that his fundamental right to equal opportunity had been rendered meaningless by arbitrary medical assessment. According to him, “if the fourth respondent had undertaken such exercise in a pragmatic approach, he would have been eligible for admission in the subjects identified… however, due to inappropriate procedures followed… he was denied an opportunity to pursue his postgraduate where he could be substantially productive.” He further contended that, as per the JIPMER assessment, he was fully capable of pursuing the eight specified courses and should be considered for counselling based on his NEET PG 2024 rank, without the need to reappear for the exam.
The respondents, including the college and the authorities, contended that they were bound strictly by NMC guidelines, which did not allow admission on the basis of the previous year’s rank if a candidate had already been found ineligible. They maintained that the medical assessment was conducted in accordance with the prescribed norms and that no deviation could be allowed. They sought dismissal of the petition on the ground that the petitioner had been rightfully declared unfit for the course he initially opted for.
Justice C. Kumarappan relied extensively on the Supreme Court’s decision in Kabir Paharia v. National Medical Commission (2025 SCC Online SC 1025), where the apex court had observed: “The denial of admission to the appellant in the MBBS UG course was grossly illegal, arbitrary and violative of the appellant’s fundamental rights as guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Such action not only reflects institutional bias and systemic discrimination but also undermines the principles of equal opportunity and non-discrimination enshrined in our constitutional framework. The constitutional mandate of substantive equality demands that persons with disabilities and PwBD be afforded reasonable accommodations rather than subjected to exclusionary practices based on unfounded presumptions about their capabilities.”
The High Court emphasized that in both Kabir Paharia’s case and the present one, candidates were unfairly denied their right to education due to faulty assessments. The court underscored that if the fault lay with the authorities, the candidate could not be compelled to undergo the NEET examination once again. Referring to the JIPMER report, the court observed that while the petitioner could not continue in MD Microbiology, he was demonstrably fit to pursue the eight other identified courses. “Therefore, in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, and relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kabir Paharia case… this Court would like to give a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the upcoming NEET PG 2025-2026 counselling… based upon the NEET rank secured by the petitioner in NEET PG 2024.”
The court directed the authorities Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Medical Counselling Committee, NMC, and Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, to allow the petitioner to attend NEET PG 2025–26 counselling for admission into any of the eight postgraduate courses identified by JIPMER, on the basis of his 2024 NEET PG rank. The writ petition was thus disposed of, with no order as to costs.
Written by Adv. Deeksha Rai
