Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
JAY SENGUPTA
Mitadru Sau – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks quashing of disability assessment. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner's argument for higher disability percentage. (Para 2) |
| 3. respondents challenge petitioner's disability claims. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 4. court reviews submissions from parties. (Para 6) |
| 5. supreme court's guidance on disability assessment. (Para 7) |
| 6. role of disability assessment board defined. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 7. court orders reassessment of disability. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 8. writ petition disposed of with directions. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT :
JAY SENGUPTA, J.
1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a direction upon the respondent authorities to quash and set aside the disability certificate dated 13th August, 2024 issued by the Designated Disability NEET Screening Centre, IPGME&R, Kolkata which assessed the petitioner’s disability at 31% and to reconsider the petitioner’s disability assessment in accordance with the previous certification issued by the NIMHANS and RG Kar Medical College and Hospital, which had assessed the petitioner’s disability as 63% and 55%, respectively and thus, allow the petitioner to claim the benefits of reservation under the PwD catego
The Disability Assessment Board cannot reassess benchmark disability levels set by authorized agencies, focusing instead on functional competency for medical course eligibility, aligning with the Rig....
The court affirmed that the UDID must be prioritized for disability claims over conflicting assessments, reinforcing the legal right to reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities.
Courts cannot interfere with the reports given by competent medical boards in the absence of malafides, and they do not hold expertise on the subject of medical assessments.
Exclusion from admission despite valid disability certification violates rights and mandates of reasonable accommodation under disability laws.
The court emphasized the need for literal interpretation of statutory provisions and the limited scope of judicial interference in policy decisions made by expert bodies.
Disability quantification should not disqualify candidates from medical education; functional competency must be assessed for eligibility.
Quantified disability alone cannot disqualify candidates from educational opportunities; individual assessments must determine eligibility based on the ability to pursue the course.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
