Case Law
Subject : Education Law - Medical Admissions
Chandigarh – The Punjab and Haryana High Court has delivered a significant ruling affirming the rights of students with disabilities, directing medical colleges to grant admission to two doctors who were previously declared unfit for postgraduate courses. The Court, comprising Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Ashok Kumar Verma, held that a candidate's disability should not be a barrier to pursuing a medical course as long as it does not impede their ability to complete their studies.
The bench based its decision on the expert opinion of a specially constituted medical board at the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, and reinforced principles recently laid down by the Supreme Court of India.
The Court was hearing two separate writ petitions filed by Dr. Shushant and Dr. Chandanpreet Kamboj, both of whom had been denied admission to their chosen postgraduate medical specializations despite qualifying for them.
Both petitioners challenged the decisions of their respective institutional medical boards, arguing that their physical conditions would not prevent them from successfully completing their courses.
In an earlier hearing, the High Court, acknowledging the absence of an appellate medical body to review such decisions, took proactive steps. Citing the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Vidhushma K. and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors. , the Court directed the Medical Superintendent of PGIMER, Chandigarh, to form an independent medical board to re-evaluate the petitioners' fitness.
The Supreme Court in Vidhushma K. had established that the assessment must focus on whether a disability would specifically hinder the pursuit of the chosen medical course, not on the candidate's general physical abilities.
The PGIMER medical board conducted a thorough examination of both doctors and concluded that their disabilities would not interfere with their academic pursuits.
Based on the unambiguous and positive findings of the expert board, the High Court allowed both petitions.
This judgment serves as a crucial reaffirmation of the rights of individuals with disabilities, ensuring that medical admission processes are based on capability and not on prejudice.
#MedicalAdmissions #DisabilityRights #MedicalEducation
No Historic Record of Saraswati Temple Demolition, Muslim Body Tells MP High Court in Bhojshala Dispute
30 Apr 2026
No Absolute Bar on Simultaneous Parole/Furlough for Co-Accused Under Delhi Prisons Rules: Delhi High Court
30 Apr 2026
Rejection of Jurisdiction Plea under Section 16 Arbitration Act Not Challengeable under Section 34 Till Final Award: Supreme Court
30 Apr 2026
'Living Separately' Under Section 13B HMA Means Cessation Of Marital Obligations, Regardless Of Residence: Patna High Court
30 Apr 2026
Consolidated SCNs under Sections 73/74 CGST Act Permissible Across Multiple FYs: Karnataka HC
01 May 2026
Allahabad HC Stays NCLT Principal Bench Order Mandating Joint Scrutiny of Allahabad Bench Filings
01 May 2026
Bombay HC Grants Interim Protection from Arrest Despite Pending Anticipatory Bail in Lower Court Due to Accused's Marriage: Sections 351(2), 64(2)(m), 74 IPC
01 May 2026
Heavy Machinery Barred in Mining Leases Except Dredging: Uttarakhand HC Directs DM to Enforce Rule 29(17) of Minor Mineral Rules
01 May 2026
No Deemed Confirmation After Probation Without Written Order Under Model Standing Orders Clause 4A: Bombay High Court
01 May 2026
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.