DATE: 07/08/2025
COURT: High Court of Allahabad
BENCH: Justice Pankaj Bhatia
FACTS:
The petitioner, a person with benchmark
disability as defined under Section 2(r) of the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016, suffers from locomotor disability assessed at 70%
permanent impairment. Belonging to the Other Backward Class, the petitioner
qualified the CBSE Class-XII examination and obtained a Unique Disability ID
(UDID) issued by the competent authority on 07.07.2023. With the intent to
appear in the NEET UG 2025 examination conducted by the NTA, the petitioner
applied for the benefit of reservation available to persons with benchmark
disabilities (PwBD). After qualifying the examination with an All India Rank of
997 in the PwBD category, the petitioner sought to participate in the first
round of counseling/registration for U.P. NEET UG 2025, scheduled between
18.07.2025 and 28.07.2025.
However, the counseling brochure mandated
that disability certificates must be issued by centres designated by the
Director General of Health Services (DGHS), Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare, New Delhi, as per NMC norms. When the petitioner appeared before the
BHU Medical Institute, a notified centre, a three-member medical team assessed
the disability at only 31%, although the petitioner was deemed fit for medical
studies in the functional disability test. Consequently, the petitioner was
denied the benefit of reservation, which requires a disability of at least 40%.
The petitioner challenged this certificate, arguing that the UDID, confirming a
disability of over 40%, should entitle him to reservation, and contended that
the BHU assessment did not comply with the Notification dated 12.03.2024 issued
by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment.
ISSUES:
The primary issue in this case was whether
the petitioner, a person with benchmark disability as defined under the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act), could claim the benefit of
reservation for NEET UG 2025 despite the disability assessment conducted by a
designated National Medical Commission (NMC) centre indicating less than 40%
disability. The dispute arose because the petitioner possessed a Unique
Disability ID (UDID) certifying over 40% disability, while the NMC-designated
centre assessed only 31%. The legal question was whether the UDID certificate
issued under the statutory scheme would prevail over the reassessment by a
non-statutory authority, and whether the petitioner was entitled to reservation
in medical admissions.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The Court allowed the petition, holding
that the petitioner is entitled to register for the NEET UG 2025 counselling
and to claim the benefit of reservation as a person with benchmark disability.
The Court directed the authorities to facilitate the petitioner’s registration
and ensure that he receives the statutory benefits flowing from his UDID
certificate.
The Court reasoned that under the RPwD Act
and its Rules, a disability certificate issued by a competent authority and
reflected in the UDID is legally valid and confers the right to reservation.
Reassessment of the petitioner’s disability by a NMC-designated centre could
only determine functional competence to undertake medical studies, not
re-quantify the statutory benchmark disability for reservation purposes. The
Supreme Court’s precedents, including Om Rathod v. DGHS, emphasized that
persons with benchmark disability have a statutory right to reservation, and
disability boards must focus on functional abilities rather than merely the
quantified percentage. The Court noted that the petitioner had successfully
qualified in the functional disability test, demonstrating suitability for
medical studies. Consequently, the UDID certificate certifying over 40%
disability prevails for the purpose of claiming reservation, ensuring
compliance with the statutory rights and the principles of equality,
non-discrimination, and reasonable accommodation under the RPwD Act. The Court
further relied on related Supreme Court guidance emphasizing that assessment
boards must adopt a human-rights-based approach, focus on functional
competence, and not override statutory certification, thereby safeguarding the
petitioner’s entitlement to reservation.
ANALYSIS:
This case highlights the critical interplay
between statutory entitlements under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) and procedural assessments conducted by medical
authorities. The petitioner, a person with benchmark disability certified with
a 70% permanent locomotor impairment and holding a UDID, sought to avail the
reservation benefits for NEET UG 2025. Despite qualifying the examination, the
petitioner was denied the reservation because a designated NMC centre assessed
his disability at only 31%, below the 40% threshold required for benchmark
disability benefits. The case underscores the tension between statutory
certification, which guarantees rights to persons with disabilities, and
functional assessments conducted by medical boards, which are primarily
intended to evaluate an individual’s ability to undertake medical studies.
The Court’s decision reaffirms the
supremacy of statutory certification over reassessments by non-statutory
authorities when claiming reservation benefits. While the NMC-designated centre
was competent to assess functional fitness for medical studies, it could not
re-quantify the petitioner’s benchmark disability or override the UDID issued
by the competent authority. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, including Om
Rathod v. DGHS, the Court emphasized that disability assessments must adopt a
human-rights-based, functional competence approach, rather than focusing solely
on numerical disability percentages. By upholding the petitioner’s entitlement
to reservation, the Court reinforced the principles of equality,
non-discrimination, and reasonable accommodation, ensuring that statutory
rights of persons with disabilities are effectively protected and cannot be
subordinated to procedural technicalities.
info@adhwaitha.com