Back
Quashes Medical Board Report Excluding NEET-UG Candidate With Thalassemia From Disability Quota
The has set aside a Medical Board report that excluded a NEET-UG candidate from the disability quota, holding that the Board wrongly focused on functional impairment rather than recognising Thalassemia as a under the . A Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Chittaranjan Dash directed the constitution of a fresh Medical Board to assess the petitioner’s disability percentage within four days, given the ongoing counselling process.
Background: A Candidate Denied Her Rightful Quota
The petitioner, Harapriya Das, appeared in NEET-UG 2026 and claimed reservation under the Persons with Disability (PwD) quota, supported by a disability certificate from a competent authority certifying she suffers from “β Thalassemia Trait” with a disability of more than 40%. However, the Chairman of the referred her to a , which opined on that the condition is “an , without any significant ” and thus did not meet the criteria for a disability certificate.
The petitioner challenged this assessment before the High Court, which initially permitted her to file a representation. When the appellate authority issued a notice on declaring her ineligible for the quota, she approached the Court again.
Medical Board’s Error: Confusing Disability with Locomotor Impairment
The core dispute revolved around the Medical Board’s interpretation of disability. The Board had concluded that because β Thalassemia Trait does not cause functional or , it cannot be considered a disability at all. The Court found this reasoning fundamentally flawed.
The judges examined the definitions under the RPwD Act. Section 2(r) defines a “” as one with not less than 40% of a “,” while Section 2(zc) defines “” by reference to the Schedule appended to the Act. That Schedule explicitly includes “Thalassemia” as a blood disorder within the category of specified disabilities.
“The moment the Act has categorised several categories of the disability, the authorities cannot bank upon one disability over the other as each disability stands on its own independent footing, and cannot be subsumed into the other,” the Bench observed. The Schedule lists physical disability, intellectual disability, mental behaviour, neurological disability, and blood disorder as separate categories, making it clear that Thalassemia is not to be judged by the standards of locomotor impairment.
Legal Analysis: Statute Overrides Narrow Medical Opinions
The Court emphasised a : once a term is defined in an Act, it must be given the same meaning wherever it appears. “The said Act has defined both the ‘’ and the ‘’, and therefore, the word ‘’ appearing under the definition of a , it should be given the same meaning as defined in the said Act,” the judgment noted.
The judges also referred to the Amendment Notification of issued by the in supersession of the , which lists Thalassemia as a and prescribes percentage thresholds for eligibility in medical courses. A candidate with 40-80% disability qualifies, while those below 40% or above 80% are excluded. The Court noted that this notification provides a rational framework and was not under challenge.
Key Observations from the Judgment
- “The opinion expressed by the was focused on the as the Thalassemia does not impact the functional ability of a person, which, in our opinion, cannot be a ground to discard the claim of the petitioner that he comes under the category of the ‘’.”
- “The moment the statute has included a particular disease as a disability, the assessment by the should be restricted on the same, and it cannot transgress such boundaries and include the other category of the disability as a .”
- “The of both the definitions engrafted into the said Act leaves no ambiguity in our mind that a person, who is suffering from a of not less than 40%, comes within the bracket of the person with the .”
Decision and Directions
The High Court quashed the ’s report dated and the consequential notice dated issued by the Chairman of the . It directed the to constitute a fresh Medical Board, which must assess the petitioner’s disability percentage strictly in accordance with the RPwD Act and the 2019 notification, without applying any extraneous criteria of .
The entire exercise must be completed within four days, considering the ongoing counselling. The petitioner was directed to cooperate and not adopt any dilatory practices.
This ruling reaffirms that the RPwD Act’s inclusive framework cannot be undermined by narrow clinical assessments, and that Thalassemia—as a blood disorder—must be recognised as a standalone disability for the purpose of reservation in educational institutions.
