SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(AP) 496

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad, J.
Jammula Nandasai Mithra – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh and others – Respondent
WP No.5316 of 2025
Decided On : 04-04-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : (Ms.) Kota Krishna Deepthi for Jada Sravan Kumar
For the Respondent: P. Soma Raju (Assistant Government Pleader for Medical and Health FW); (Mrs.) T. Venkata Sridevi (SC for Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences)

Headnote:(A) Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Section 2(y) - Mandamus for additional time in examinations - The petitioner suffers from benchmark disability (Cerebral Palsy) and sought additional compensatory time, which was previously granted - The court discussed the need for reasonable accommodation and the guidelines from the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment regarding examination provisions. - The petitioner's request was originally denied based on interpretation of a previous order that limited additional time to the first year MBBS exams, which the court found unsatisfactory. (Paras 2, 4, 10, 20)

(B) Judicial principles on reasonable accommodation - The court emphasized that reasonable adjustments required under law must be made, particularly for benchmark disabilities, ensuring access to education without imposing undue burden. (Paras 6, 19)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner is enrolled in the MBBS program and has benchmark Cerebral Palsy, which necessitates extra time for examinations. Previous accommodations significantly aided in the petitioner’s academic success.

Findings of Court:
The court allowed the petition for extending compensatory time for future examinations in light of the petitioner’s needs and past success.

Issues: The primary questions were whether the previous order limiting additional time should apply to following exams and the standards for reasonable accommodation for the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that prior accommodations were necessary and should continue, upholding the principles outlined in the RPwD Act, 2016, and relevant Supreme Court judgments regarding reasonable accommodation.

Result: Petition allowed.

JUDGMENT /ORDER :

Heard Ms. Kota Krishna Deepthi, learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner; Smt. T.V. Sri Devi, learned Standing Counsel for Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences and Sri P. Soma Raju, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Medical & Health.

2. The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer :

    “......to issue a writ, order or direction particularly, one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.3 in issuing the impugned Memo No.1102/EIC/MBBS/2024 dated 16.01.2025, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for the grant of additional compensatory time for all MBBS Second Year examinations and the continuation of the same for all upcoming examinations until the completion of MBBS course, in view of her benchmark disability of “Cerebral Palsy” depriving the petitioner the reasonable accommodation contrary to the Guidelines issued regarding the admission and examination process for students with “Specified Disabilities” under the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, specifically designed to ensure an equitable learning environment as per Section 2(y) of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission and others, (2021) 5 SCC 370 = MANU/SC/0067/2021, besides being contrary to the “Guidelines for conducting written examination for persons with benchmark disabilities” issued by the Ministry of Social justice and Empowerment (Department of Empowerment of persons with Disabilities (Divyangan) vide Office Memorandum dated 29.08.2018 as illegal, unjust, unfair, arbitrary, and in violation of the Fundamental Rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India besides being in violation of the provisions enshrined in the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and consequently set aside the impugned Memo No.1102/EIC/MBBS/2024 dated 16.01.2025 issued by the respondent No.3 duly directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to attend the II year MBBS examinations and all other upcoming examinations till the completion of the course with a grant of additional compensatory time of 30 minutes in accordance with “Guidelines for conducting written examination for persons with benchmark disabilities” issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (Department of Empowerment of persons with Disabilities (Divyangan) vide Office Memorandum dated 29.08.2018. As per Section 2(y) of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission and others (supra) and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case”.

3. On 04.03.2025, when this writ petition was listed for the first time, two weeks time was granted to the respondent authorities to file the counter-affidavit. In compliance of the same, the counter-affidavit has been filed by the Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences (respondent No.2) on 12.03.2025.

4. Ms. Kota Krishna Deepthi, learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has submitted the following facts:

4A. It is submitted that the writ petitioner has joined the MBBS Course in Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam for the academic batch 2020-2021. The writ petitioner is suffering from the disability of “Cerebral Palsy”. The “Certificate for Person with Disability” was issued to the writ petitioner (Ex.P12) to the effect that the writ petitioner suffers from physical (Locomotor/Orthopaedic) disability affecting the Bilateral Lower Limbs. It is submitted that this disability severely impacts the ability to complete written examinations within the stipulated duration under Section 2 (r) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (for short ‘RPwD Act, 2016’).

4B. It is submitted that the disability of the writ petitioner, having been classified as a “Benchmark Disability”

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top