Back
Rules Medical Board Cannot Re-Quantify Disability for MBBS PwBD Quota
The has delivered a significant ruling clarifying the limited role of Medical Assessment Boards in the admission process for MBBS courses under the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) category. A Division Bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary held that such boards cannot re-determine the percentage of disability already certified under the . The court quashed the “” findings of the boards in three separate , observing that the boards had exceeded their jurisdiction by encroaching upon the exclusive domain of the statutory .
Repeated Litigation Sparks Judicial Concern
The court began its judgment with a strong observation about the recurring nature of such disputes. “It is a deeply regrettable state of affairs that, notwithstanding the statutory primacy and binding nature of the issued by the Competent Authority under , this Court remains continuously inundated with repetitive during each successive academic session,” the bench noted.
The three petitioners—Shubham Mishra, Saurabh Rana, and Gulfam Ahmad—each held valid disability certificates from their respective , quantifying their disabilities at 45%, 50%, and 40% respectively. These certificates covered conditions ranging from Bell's Palsy and profound hearing loss to blindness. All three had secured qualifying ranks in under the PwBD category.
The Core Conflict: Statutory Certificate vs. Board Assessment
Before participating in counselling, every PwBD candidate must obtain an from a constituted under guidelines. The board is tasked with assessing whether the candidate is functionally competent to pursue the MBBS course with reasonable accommodations.
In Shubham Mishra’s case, the board found him “capable of successfully completing the MBBS Course” but unilaterally reduced his certified disability from 45% to 20% and declared him “.” The affirmed this conclusion. Similar outcomes befell the other petitioners.
The petitioners argued that the NMC guidelines were meant only for and that re-quantifying disability was beyond the board’s mandate. The respondents countered that the prescribed format included a column for recording disability percentage, and that governed PwBD eligibility.
Court’s Legal Analysis: Functional Assessment Cannot Replace
The High Court examined the statutory scheme of the RPwD Act, noting that Section 57 designates the —in this case, the CMO—to issue disability certificates. empowers the government to notify guidelines for assessing disability extent. “Once such a certificate is issued and remains unrevoked, unchallenged and subsisting, the percentage of disability recorded therein constitutes the of that fact, binding on all authorities, unless set aside by a forum competent to do so in accordance with law,” the court held.
The court distinguished between the board’s role and the ’s role: “The domain of the Board is circumscribed to the effect as to whether, notwithstanding the disability already certified and quantified under the Act of 2016, the candidate possesses the functional capacity, with or without and , to pursue and complete the MBBS course. This is an assessment of capability to study medicine, not a re-assessment of the fact or extent of disability.”
Precedents Affirmed
The bench relied on a consistent line of judgments, including Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. Union of India (), Om Rathod v. The Director General of Health Services (), and Anmol v. Union of India (). These cases established that a quantified disability cannot by itself disqualify a candidate; the board must conduct an individualized functional assessment and cannot apply mechanical percentage-based bars.
The court also cited the coordinate Division Bench decision in Somya Pal v. Union of India (), which had already held that the medical board cannot override the .
Clause 12.3(b) Undermines Board’s Action
The court expressed surprise at the board’s approach, noting that expressly states: “No candidate shall be declared ineligible solely on the basis of the percentage of recorded in the or .” The board, by reducing the percentage and then declaring the candidate ineligible, had acted contrary to its own governing framework.
“Further, we are rather surprised that when clause 12.3(b) of the guidelines in specific terms declare that ‘No candidate shall be declared ineligible solely on the basis of the percentage of recorded in the or ’, how the Assessment Board invent some deleterious tactics to declare a candidate ineligible by reducing the percentage of disability in its ,” the court observed.
Final Directions and Implications
The High Court quashed the conclusions of “” in the eligibility certificates and appellate opinions, while leaving the finding of functional competency undisturbed. It directed that the petitioners be treated as eligible candidates under the PwBD reserved category for counselling, based on their original disability certificates and UDID cards.
The court also clarified that its judgment does not dilute the requirement of a ; it only bars . The NMC was given liberty to issue clarificatory instructions to all Medical Assessment Boards to ensure compliance with the law.
This ruling reinforces the primacy of the RPwD Act’s certification mechanism and prevents administrative bodies from undermining statutory rights through unauthorized re-assessment. It provides clarity for future admission cycles and aims to reduce the repetitive litigation that has burdened the courts.
(Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, J., authored the judgment, with Shekhar B. Saraf, J., concurring.)
