Back
2025 Supreme(AP) 1162
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ, NINALA JAYASURYA, J.
Avula Chaitanya Srinivasa Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition Nos. 32530, 32539 of 2025
Decided On : 27-11-2025
For the Appellants : Ramalakshmana Reddy Sanepalli, Aishwarya Nagula
For the Respondents: Tata Venkata Sridevi, Vivek Chandra Sekhar S.
Medical Boards must provide specific reasons for eligibility assessments and include professionals with disabilities to ensure compliance with legal standards.
Headnote:(A) Medical Council of India Guidelines - Disability Assessment - The petitioners sought consideration under PwBD category for admission in Post Graduate courses; Medical Board found petitioners eligible for certain courses but not others - Petitioners challenged the reports as not complying with NMC guidelines. (Paras 1-4, 11, 12, 14-15)
(B) Procedural Requirements - Court emphasized that Medical Boards must provide specific reasons for disability assessments and include professionals with disabilities in their constitution. (Paras 8, 15-18)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners applied under PwBD category for Post Graduate medical courses; Medical Boards determined their eligibility based on disabilities, leading to disputes regarding specific courses. (Paras 1-4)
Findings of Court:
Medical Board's assessments lacked detailed reasoning for ineligibility in certain courses; Court mandated re-examination considering inclusion of a professional with disability. (Paras 11-14, 18-20)
Issues: Whether the Medical Board’s assessments adhered to NMC guidelines and included mandated professionals; the necessity of specific reasoning in assessment reports. (Paras 8, 15)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that Medical Boards must comply with legal guidelines by providing detailed written justification for disability decisions and including disability representation. (Paras 15-18)
Result: Writ Petitions disposed of, requiring further examination by a properly constituted Medical Board.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. eligibility determination for medical courses (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. constitution of medical boards for eligibility assessment (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments regarding board composition for disability assessment (Para 6 , 8 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. medical board reasoning for course eligibility (Para 9 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. requirement to reassess including disabled professionals (Para 18 , 19) |
| 6. conclusion and order disposition of petitions (Para 20 , 22) |
JUDGMENT :
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ.
1. The petitioners sought consideration under PwBD category for admission in Post Graduate courses for the Session 2025-26.
2. The petitioner in WP.No.32530 of 2025 was got examined by a Medical Board constituted by Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences which found him to be suffering 50% disability and found eligible for admission for the courses in Psychiatry, Radiotherapy, Biochemistry, SPM, Hospital Administration, Microbiology, Pharmacology and Physiology only. The petitioner, however, is inclined to be considered for courses in Radio Diagnosis, Dermatology and General Medicine.
3. The petitioner in WP.No.32539 of 2025 was also got examined by the Medical Board constituted by Dr NTR University which found him to be eligible for admission for the courses in DVL, Family Medicine, Nuclear Medicine, Psychiatry, Radiotherapy, SPM, Hospital Administration, Microbiology, Pharmacology and Physiology. The petitioner, however, is inclined to be considered for the course in Pathology also.
4. The petitioners question the medical report issued by the Medical Board of Dr NTR University and the stand taken was that the same be not acted upon at all inasmuch as the said Medical Board was not constituted in terms of the NMC guidelines.
5. It is not out of place here to mention that as many as 33 Medical Boards have been constituted throughout the country which have been entrusted with the job of issuing certificates upon examination of candidates.
6. Mr. Vivek Chandrasekhar S, learned counsel appearing for NMC, states that the 33 Medical Boards have been constituted only in regard to 15% seats reserved for candidates applying under the All India Quota and further that the States are under an obligation to constitute the Medical Boards for examining the candidates suffering from benchmark disabilities.
7. Admittedly, no Medical Board has been constituted by the State in the State of Andhra Pradesh and it is in that perspective that Dr NTR University has constituted a Medical Board which consists of the following medical professionals:
1. Dr. U. Aruna Kumari, Prof. & HoD of Neurology, SMC, Vijayawada.
2. Dr. I. Babji Syam Kumar, Prof. & HoD of Neuro Surgery, SMC, Vijayawada.
3. Dr. K. Ravi, Prof. & HoD of ENT, SMC, Vijayawada
4. Dr. A. Srinivasa Rao, Prof. of Orthopaedics, SMC, Vijayawada
5. Dr. D. Sudheer Babu, Prof. of General Medicine, SMC, Vijayawada
6. Dr. B. Kiran Kumar, Asst. Professor, PMR Department, AIIMs, Mangalagiri.
8. On the previous date of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners had emphasized that the Apex Court in Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. Union of India and others , 2024 INSC 775 had mandated that the Disability Assessment Boards had to assess the candidates and record positively whether the disability of the candidate would or would not come in the way of the candidate pursuing the courses in question. The Disability Assessment Boards were also required to state reasons in the event of the Disability Assessment Board concluding that the candidate was not eligible for pursuing the course.
9. Since the Medical Board constituted by Dr. NTR University in its earlier medical examination had not specifically given any reason as to why the petitioners were found unfit and ineligible for undergoing courses of Radio Diagnosis, Dermatology & General Medicine (in WP.No.32530 of 2025) and Pathology (in WP.No.32539 of 2025), while holding them to be considered for the courses of Psychiatry, Radiotherapy, Biochemistry among five others (in respect of the petitioner
