Flawed Disability Assessment: PwD Doctor Can Use Previous NEET-PG Rank for Next Year's Counselling, Citing 'Kabir Paharia' Case, Rules Madras High Court - 2025-09-09

Madras High Court Allows PwD Doctor to Use 2024 NEET Rank for 2025 Counselling After Flawed Disability Assessment

Chennai: In a significant ruling championing the rights of persons with disabilities, the Madras High Court has directed medical counseling authorities to allow a doctor with a 90% locomotor disability to participate in the upcoming 2025-26 NEET-PG counselling using the rank he secured in the 2024 examination. Justice C. Kumarappan, citing a recent Supreme Court precedent, provided this extraordinary relief after finding that a flawed initial disability assessment had unfairly cost the petitioner a year and a rightful opportunity to pursue a postgraduate medical degree.

The court quashed the original disability certificate that deemed the petitioner "not eligible" and instead relied on a subsequent, more pragmatic assessment to ensure his constitutional right to equality and opportunity was upheld.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Dr. Tarigonda Surya Maheedhar, an MBBS graduate, met with an unfortunate accident in 2021, leading to a left above-elbow amputation. Despite this, he cleared the NEET-PG 2024 exam with a meritorious All India Rank of 50084 and sought admission under the 5% reservation quota for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) as per the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

However, a Disability Certificate issued on September 18, 2024, by the Regional Medical Board in Chennai, while assessing his disability at 90%, summarily declared him "not fulfilling eligibility criteria for NEET PG PWD reservation." This was based on National Medical Commission (NMC) guidelines which generally deem candidates with over 80% disability ineligible. The petitioner argued this assessment was based merely on the quantification of disability and failed to evaluate his functional competency, a more nuanced and required approach.

Court's Intervention and Expert Reassessment

During the proceedings, the High Court passed an interim order allowing Dr. Maheedhar to participate in the 2024 counselling, where he was allotted an MD Microbiology seat. Simultaneously, following Supreme Court directives in similar cases, the court referred him to the Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Pondicherry, for a re-assessment of his functional disability.

The JIPMER report, submitted on June 4, 2025, presented a starkly different conclusion. The expert panel found that while Dr. Maheedhar might not be best suited for MD Microbiology, he was fully capable of pursuing and being "substantially productive" in eight other postgraduate specialities, including: - Psychiatry - Radiation Oncology - Community Medicine - Hospital Administration - Pharmacology - Biochemistry

This report became the cornerstone of the petitioner's argument that the initial, rigid assessment by the respondent board was erroneous and had denied him the chance to be considered for courses he was perfectly competent to pursue.

Arguments Presented

• Petitioner's Counsel: Argued that the initial assessment was mechanical and failed to adopt a pragmatic, functional approach. By the time the corrective JIPMER report arrived, the opportunity for the 2024-25 academic year was lost. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Kabir Paharia vs. National Medical Commission , the counsel contended that when a deserving PwBD candidate is denied admission due to systemic failure, they should be accommodated in the subsequent academic year without having to retake the entrance exam.

• Respondents' Counsel (NMC & Government): Maintained that the initial disability certificate was issued strictly in accordance with NMC guidelines. They further argued that regulations do not permit using a previous year's NEET-PG rank for the current year's admissions.

Legal Principles and Court's Reasoning

Justice Kumarappan heavily relied on the Supreme Court's decision in the Kabir Paharia case, which dealt with a similar instance of wrongful denial of admission to a PwBD candidate. The High Court extracted pivotal observations from the Supreme Court's judgment:

“Manifestly... the denial of admission to the appellant in the MBBS UG course was grossly illegal, arbitrary and violative of the appellant’s fundamental rights as guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Such action not only reflects institutional bias and systemic discrimination but also undermines the principles of equal opportunity and non- discrimination...”

Applying this precedent, the Madras High Court reasoned that Dr. Maheedhar's situation was analogous. The initial faulty assessment by the respondent authorities, not any lack of merit on the petitioner's part, led to him losing a valuable academic year. The court held that forcing him to take the NEET-PG exam again would be unjust.

Final Verdict and Implications

Setting aside the respondents' objections, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with a clear and remedial direction.

The court ordered the respondents to permit Dr. Tarigonda Surya Maheedhar to participate in the upcoming NEET PG 2025-2026 counselling for admission into the eight postgraduate courses identified as suitable by the JIPMER expert panel. Crucially, this admission will be based on the rank he secured in the NEET-PG 2024 examination.

This judgment reinforces the judiciary's role in ensuring that disability guidelines are interpreted not as rigid barriers but as frameworks for enabling inclusion. It underscores the principle of substantive equality, mandating a shift from a purely quantitative assessment of disability to a functional and individual-centric approach in medical admissions.