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

2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 27601

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Rohit Kapoor, JJ
Ramandeep Kaur Randhawa – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent
CWP No.31343 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kanwaljit Singh, Ajaivir Singh, Shazia K. Singh
For the Respondents: Maninder Singh Garcha, Ambika Chaudhary, Mehak Kanwar, Sahil, Nitin Kaushal

The definition of 'person with disability' under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, does not exclude individuals with temporary or variable disability status from reservation benefits; disability certificates indicating periodic validity are valid for all legal purposes, and administrative certificate corrections relate back to original assessment dates.

Headnote:(A) Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Sections 2(r), 2(s), 56, 57, 58 - Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 - Rules 18, 19 - Admission to MBBS course under ward of disabled police personnel category - Petitioner's father suffered 50% locomotor disability due to gunshot injury - Respondents rejected claim labeling disability as 'temporary' and certificate date after cut-off - Court held that Act does not distinguish between 'permanent' and 'temporary' for reservation, as disability is defined as long-term by nature of the schedule - Mentioning 'temporary' in certificate is surplusage and inconsistent with statutory scheme (Paras 13, 15, 20).

(B) Disability Certificate - Validity and Cut-off date - Correction of inadvertent error - Certificate dated 03.09.2024 existed before cut-off date - Subsequent certificate dated 01.10.2025 merely rectified error - Held: Rectification relates back to original date; applicant cannot suffer for administrative errors (Para 21).

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, daughter of a police officer who sustained a gunshot injury, applied for MBBS admission under the category of a ward of a disabled police personnel. The authorities rejected the claim because the disability certificate indicated a temporary validity period and was allegedly obtained after the application deadline. The petitioner challenged the denial, asserting the disability was medically established prior to the deadline and that temporary disability is not excluded under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act.

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the Act is a beneficial legislation intended to ensure social inclusion. Disability, as defined, implies a long-term impediment; assigning a 'temporary' status does not negate its existence. The correction of a certificate due to medical authority error relates back to the initial date. The petition was allowed.

Issues: (1) Whether a 'temporary' disability certificate is valid for reservation under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. (2) Whether a disability certificate issued or rectified after the application cut-off date is inadmissible if the initial assessment occurred before said date.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Act of 2016 and the 2017 Rules do not categorize disabilities as 'temporary' for the purposes of reserving benefits; rather, they categorize based on chances of variation. A certificate issued for a period of validity is valid for all statutory purposes. Administrative delays or errors in drafting the certificate do not disadvantage the applicant if the parent's actual condition was established timely.

Result: Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. disability certificate date of issuance vs date of application. (Para 1 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. interpretation of 'permanent' vs 'temporary' disability under the act of 2016. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
3. certifying authority and legislative intent of disability assessment. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
4. rectification of clerical errors in certificates related back to initial issuance. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)
ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. (Oral)

1. Petitioner is the daughter of Daljit Singh, who is a police personnel and sustained a gunshot injury in police action (terrorist operation) on 13.12.2023. The injury sustained by him has been classified as femoral neuropathy with limited range of motion of left hip and left knee. This injury has caused disability to the petitioner’s father and a certificate has been issued by the competent authority of the Government of India describing the disability as locomotive disability. The disability certificate dated 03.09.2024 (Annexure P-6) issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Ludhiana records the disability to be 50% temporary disability in relation to his one arm on account of gunshot injury sustained on 13.12.2023. The benefit of such disability is claimed by the petitioner for securing the admission in MBBS Course. The authorities of the State of Punjab have, however, declined such protection to the petitioner on the ground that the disability is temporary in nature and requires review after two years. The respondents also assert that the certificate of disability relied upon by the petitioner is dated 01.10.2025 (Annexure P-7) which is after last date fixed for making of application i.e. 30.09.2025. While entertaining the writ petition we passed a detailed order dated 17.10.2025 noticing the contention of the petitioner which for the sake of convenience is reproduced hereunder:

“Grievance of the petitioner is with regard to non-consideration of his claim for admission to MBBS course on account of Disability Certificate having been obtained after the last date fixed for filing of the application.

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the Disability Certificate of petitioner is dated 03.09.2024 which was of a date prior to the last date fixed for making application i.e. 24.07.2025. The authorities, however, were not satisfied with this Disability Certificate as the same was not happily worded. This Certificate is Annexure P-6 and contains the satisfaction of the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) that this is a case of Locomotive Disability and the diagnosis in this case is gunshot injury limited range of motion of left hip and left knee. He further submits that the disability has been quantified as 50% in relation to one arm. The finding contained in the Disability Certificate reads as under:-

“(A) He is a case of Locomotor Disability

(B) The diagnosis in his case is allege h/o gunshot injury 13.12.23 limited range of motion of left hip and left knee

(C) He has 50% (in figure) fifty percent (in words) Temporary Disability in relation to his One Arm (OA) as per the guidelines (Guidelines for the purpose of assessing the extent of specified disability in a person included under RPwD Act, 2016 notified by Government of India vide S.O. 1338 (E) Dated 12.03.2024). This certificate recommended for 2 year(s), and therefore this certificate shall be valid till 31.08.2026.”

The authorities, at the time of document verification, expressed doubt with regard to genuineness and correctness of the Disability Certificate on account of which the petitioner again appeared before the CMO and a subsequent confirmation was issued on 01.10.2025, wherein the substance of the report is as under:-

“(A) He is a case of :Locomotor Disability.

(B) Name of affected body part: One Leg (OL).

(C) The diagnosis in his case is Alleged h/o gunshot injury 13/12/2023, femoral neuropathy with limited range of motion of left hip and left knee.

(D) He has 50% (in f

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