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

2025 Supreme(Raj) 2413

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, BENCH AT JAIPUR
SAMEER JAIN, J.
Raman Khandelawal, Son of Shri Anil Natani – Petitioner 
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through Principal Secretary – Respondent 
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12414 of 2025 Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11604 of 2025
Decided On : 11-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Himanshu Jain with Ms. Apoorva Agarwal, Mr. Yashraj Kumawat, Mr. Avinash Bhardwaj, Mr. Divyansh Choudhary, Mr. Jatin Sharma, Dr. T.N. Sharma.
For the Respondents: Mr. Yash Joshi with Ms. Ritika Naruka, Ms. Tanvisha Pant, Ms. Monisha Agarwal, Mr. Vivek Guwalani, Mr. M.S. Raghav with Mr. Vishwas, Saini & Mr. Mananjay Singh, Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG, Mr. Angad Mirdha, Ms. Manjeet Kaur with Ms. Taruna & Mr. Garvit Sharma.

The court upheld the exclusion of candidates with disabilities from medical admissions based on a lawful assessment of functional eligibility, balancing inclusion with patient safety under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act.

Headnote:(A) Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - National Medical Commission Guidelines - Equal opportunity and non-discrimination in medical admissions under PWD category - Petitioners denied admission despite meeting merit criteria due to assessment by Medical Board. (Paras 26, 27, 28).

(B) Judicial Review - Court emphasized limited scope of review over expert body decisions unless shown to be perverse or arbitrary. The petitioners seek judicial intervention against exclusion from the provisional merit list for MBBS based on arbitrary rejection of functional eligibility. (Paras 26, 27).

Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged exclusion from MBBS merit list under PWD category despite valid disability certificates certifying 55% permanent locomotor disability, alleging violation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and NMC Guidelines. (Paras 1, 2, 5).

Findings of Court:
Court found no infirmity in the Medical Board's decision, upheld adherence to NMC guidelines emphasizing assessment based on functional competency balancing inclusion with patient safety. (Paras 24, 28, 29).

Issues: The key issues included the legality of the exclusion of the petitioners from the merit list and whether the Medical Board’s evaluation was arbitrary and non-transparent. (Paras 1, 17, 18).

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Medical Board’s assessment complied with statutory and guideline requirements and emphasized that judicial review should not interfere with expert evaluations absent clear evidence of wrongdoing. (Paras 26, 27).

Result: Writ petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. challenge to exclusion from pwd category in mbbs admissions. (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioners' arguments against exclusion cite legal and procedural grounds. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. respondents defend their position based on guidelines and assessments. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
4. court evaluates procedural compliance of the respondents. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
5. judicial review limited to merits; emphasizes balance of inclusion and safety. (Para 26 , 27 , 28)
6. court dismisses the writ petitions, upholding the assessment process. (Para 29 , 30)

JUDGMENT :

SAMEER JAIN, J.

1. In the present batch of writ petitions, the scope of the controversy involved, albeit not limited to but is broadly and predominantly defined by the challenge raised regarding the arbitrary and illegal action of the respondents of not considering the candidature of the petitioners for professional course of MBBS, pursuant to NEET-UG Examination, 2025 albeit the petitioners stand high in order of merits; against the validity of provisional combined list (Counseling Round – I) dated 10.08.2025 for PWD candidates, wherein the petitioners have been excluded on the ground of their physical disability; as to the action of respondents of not following the guidelines spelled out in the ratio of Om Rathore vs. Director General of Health Service and Ors. by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and vis-à-vis the consequent guidelines issued by the National Medical Commission dated 19.07.2025 and 21.07.2025. Consequently, considering the fact that the writ petitions warrant adjudication on common questions of law and fact; with the consent of learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the parties, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12414/2025 titled as Raman Khandelawal Son of Shri Anil Natani Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. is being taken up as the lead case. It is cautiously clarified that any discrepancies in the present batch of writ petitions, pertain purely to the factual narratives contained therein and not vis-à-vis the questions of law to be determined by this Court; the instant judgment shall be applicable on the petition connected herein/henceforth on mutatis mutandis basis.

2. The lead petition has been filed with the following prayers:

"i. By appropriate writ, order or direction the action of the respondents of not considering the candidature of petitioner for admission into Medical Course under PwD Category, pursuant to NEET UG-2025 may be declared as illegal, arbitrary and against the spirit of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

ii. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the provisional merit list dated 10.08.2025 may be quashed and set aside and Respondents may be directed to prepare fresh merit list for admission in Medical Course pursuant to NEET UG-2025, while including the name of the Petitioner and accordingly, Petitioner may be considered for admission in consonance with his merit and preference, for admission to Medical Course.

iii. Any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the Petitioner."

SUBMISSIONS BY LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset contended that the petitioners have been unjustly denied consideration for admission to the MBBS course under the NEET UG–2025 examination in the category of Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PWD). It is submitted that despite securing a meritorious ranks and marks in the said category, the petitioner’s candidature has been arbitrarily excluded from the merit list dated 10.08.2025, which is under challenge in the present proceedings to the extent of such exclusion.

4. It is further submitted that, as per the details reflected in the NEET UG–2025 online application form (Annexure-2 in lead petition), the petitioners secured 420 and 500 marks respectively and stood meritorious und

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