Nikita Deb vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors
- Court
- Gauhati High Court
Page No. 1/25
GAHC010207962026
2026:GAU-AS:16270
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Writ petition [c] no. 5160/2026
Sabirna Sultana, S/o- Sabbir Ahmed, Vill-
Dalophar, P.O. Ashalkandi P.S. Patharkandi,
Dist- Sribhumi, Assam.
………………Petitioner
- VERSUS -
1. The State of Assam represented by the
Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of
Assam, Department of Health and Family
Welfare, Dispur, Guwahati-06.
2. The Director of Medical Education, Assam,
Khanapara, Guwahati-22.
………………. Respondents
With Writ petition [c] no. 4963/2026
1. Md. Abul Kalam Azad, S/o- Late Yakub Ali and
Father of Azad Wasib Ahmed, R/o- Ural Kata
Page No. 2/25
Pather, P.O. Sahariagaon, P.S. Morigaon,
District- Morigaon, Assam.
2. Azad Wasib Ahmed, Son of and represented
by his father Md. Abdul Kalam Azad, R/o- Ural
Kata Pather, P.O. Sahariagaon, P.S. Morigaon,
District- Morigaon.
………………Petitioners
- VERSUS -
1. The State of Assam represented by
Commissioner and Secretary to the
Government of Assam, Medical Education and
Research Departments, Janata Bhawan,
Dispur, Guwahati- 781006, Assam.
2. Director of Medical Education (DME), Assam,
Directorate of medical Education, Six Mile,
Jaya Nagar, Khanapara, Guwahati, Assam,
781022, Assam.
3. National Medical Commision, represented by
its Secretary, Pocket-14, Sector- 8, Dwarka
Phase- 1, New Delhi- 110077.
………………. Respondents
With Writ petition [c] no. 5429/2026
Nikita Deb, D/o- Mr. Nitu Chandra Deb, R/o-
Vill and P.O. Mahishasan, P.S.- Sribhumi
Page No. 3/25
(Karimganj), Dist- Sribhumi, Assam, Pin-
788781.
………………Petitioner
- -
VERSUS
1. The State of Assam, represented by the
Commissioner and Secretary to the
Government of Assam, Medical Education
Department, Dispur, Guwahati – 781006.
2. The Director of Medical Education, Assam,
Office of the Director of Medical Education,
Sixmile, Khanapara, Guwahati, Assam.
3. The National Medical Commission, represented
by its Chairman, H3GG Plus 9PC, Dada Dev
Mandir Road, Block-P, Sector 8, Dwarka, New
Delhi, Pin- 110077.
………………. Respondents
BeFore
hon’BLe Mr. JUStice MAniSh choUDhUrY
Advocates :
Advocate for the Petitioner no. 1 : Mr. D. Gogoi, Advocate
[W.P.(C) no. 4963/2026]
Advocate for the Petitioner no. 2 : Mr. A.H.M.R. Choudhury, Advocate
[W.P.(C) no. 5160/2026]
Advocate for the Petitioner no. 3 : Mr. I.H. Saikia, Advocate
[W.P.(C) no. 5429/2026]
Page No. 4/25
Advocate for the Respondents : Mr. D.P. Borah, Standing
Counsel, Health & Family
Welfare Department, GoA.
: Mr. D. Baisya, Standing
Counsel, National Medical
Commission [NMC]
Date of hearing : 05.11.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 05.11.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of the
Operative part of the judgment ? : No
Whether the full judgment has been
Pronounced ? : Yes
JUDGMent & orDer [orAL]
1. All the three writ petitions, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, are against denial of admission of the three petitioners into first year
MBBS/BDS courses in Government Medical & Dental Colleges of Assam after
st
completion of 1 Round of Online Counseling, Session : 2026.
2. As all the writ petitions involve more or less similar issues, that is, the eligibility
of the petitioners to get admission in the first year in the MBBS Course in the
Government Medical Colleges of Assam under PWD Category [DIVYANG] on the
basis of scores they have secured in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test
[UG] – 2026 [the NEET 2026], the three writ petitions are tagged together.
3. Rule issued. As the necessary pleadings of the parties have been brought on
record and the learned counsel for the parties have expressed urgency in view
of an Educational Notice dated 03.11.2026 of the Directorate of Medical
Page No. 5/25
Education, Assam, making the rule returnable forthwith, the writ petitions are
taken up for final consideration.
4. By the Educational Notice dated 03.11.2026, it has been notified that in
pursuance of new schedule published by the Government of India, Special Stray
round Online Counseling for vacant MBBS seats in the Government Medical
Colleges of Assam for the Sessions 2026 under the State quota is going to be
held under the Directorate of Medical Education, Assam. The candidates who
have qualified in the NEET [UG] – 2026 conducted by the National Testing
Agency [NTA] are required to participate in the online counseling provided they
fulfill all eligibility criteria mentioned in the Medical Colleges and Dental Colleges
st
of Assam [Regulation of Admission into 1 year MBBS / BDS course] Rules
2017, as amended up to 2026 [2017 Rules, for short] as well as meet the cut-
off scores in NEET [UG]-2026. It is mentioned in the Educational Notice that
Online portal for counseling would be available for registration on 04.11.2026
and after completion of online registration process, online filling of choice would
be available on 05.11.2026. Locking of choice would be available on
05.11.2026, after which the choice would be locked automatically. The process
of seat allotment would be completed on 06.11.2026 and after processing of
the data, the results would be displayed along with modalities of admission on
07.11.2026.
5. Before adverting to the issues involved in this writ petition, it is necessary to
narrate the background facts as regards the three petitioners which have led
them to prefer the present three writ petitions.
6. For ease of reference, the writ petitioner in W.P.[C] no. 4963/2026 is referred
hereinafter as ‘the petitioner no. 1’ and the writ petitioner in W.P.[C] no.
5160/2026 is referred hereinafter as ‘the petitioner no. 2’. The writ petitioner in
W.P.[C] no. 5429/2026 is preferred hereinafter as the petitioner no. 3.
Page No. 6/25
7. All the three petitioners have appeared in the NEET [UG]-2026 on 21.06.2026
with Assam as their State of eligibility. The category in which all the three writ
petitioners have applied for getting admission into the first year of MBBS course
is ‘Persons with Bench Mark Disability [PwBD]’ with disability of 40% or above.
The type of PwBD disability of the petitioner no. 1 and the petitioner no. 2 is of
low vision. The disability suffers by the petitioner no. 3 is speech and language
disability.
8. The statutory framework for providing reservation in all educational institutions
funded or recognized by the State Government finds place in the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 [‘the PwD Act’, for short]. Section 2[s] of the
PwD Act has prescribed that a ‘person with disability’ means a person with long
term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairment which, in interaction
with barriers, hinders his full and effective participation in society equally with
others. Section 2[r] has provided for the definition of ‘Person with Benchmark
Disability’ [PwBD] and it means a person with not less than forty per cent of a
specified disability where specified disability has not been defined in measurable
terms and includes a person with disability where specified disability has been
defined in measurable terms, as certified by the certifying authority. Certifying
authority means authority designated under Section 57[1].
8.1. Section 16 has inter alia provided that the appropriate Government and the
local authorities shall endeavour that all educational institutions funded or
recognised by them provide inclusive education to the children with disabilities
and towards that end shall admit them without discrimination and provide
education and reasonable accommodation according to individual requirements.
As per Section 2[y], ‘Reasonable accommodation’ means necessary and
appropriate modification and adjustments, without imposing a disproportionate
or undue burden in a particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities the
enjoyment or exercise of rights equally with others.
Page No. 7/25
9. In the NEET [UG]-2026, the petitioner no. 1 who had applied in Gen-EWS &
PwBD category, scored 242 marks out of 720. By an Admission Notice dated
02.09.2026, the details of which would be adverted to later on, the petitioner
no. 1 was included in the provisional select list for admission into first year of
the MBBS Course, Session – 2026 in Tezpur Medical College, Tezpur. The
petitioner no. 1 was issued a Disability Certificate with UDID no.
AS2910320090002549 on 03.03.2025 by the Department of Empowerment of
Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment,
Government of India [GoI] recording that the petitioner no. 1 has low vision in
both eyes and has 40% disability and the disability is permanent as per the
governing guidelines notified by the Government of India under the PwD Act.
10. To appear in the NEET [UG]-2026, the petitioner no. 2 had applied in the Gen-
PwBD category. In the NEET [UG] – 2026, the petitioner no. 2 scored 228
marks out of 720. The petitioner no. 2 was included in the provisional select list
for admission into first year MBBS Course, Session 2026 in Dhubri Medical
College. The petitioner no. 2 was issued a Disability Certificate with Certificate
no. AS1810020050077829 on 15.02.2024 by the Department of Empowerment
of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, GoI
recording that the petitioner no. 2 has low vision in both eyes and she suffers
from Albinism Nystagmus and has 40% permanent disability in relation to both
eyes as per the governing guidelines notified by the Government of India under
the 2016 Act.
11. To appear in the NEET [UG]-2026, the petitioner no. 3 had applied in the Gen-
PwBD category. He scored 219 marks out of 720 in the NEET [UG] – 2026. The
petitioner no. 3 was included in the provisional merit list for admission into first
year of the MBBS Course, Session 2026 in Bongaigaon Medical College. The
petitioner no. 3 was issued a Disability Certificate with Certificate no.
AS1811520050090283 on 14.06.2023 by the Department of Empowerment of
Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, GoI
recording that the petitioner no. 3 has speech and language disability and as
Page No. 8/25
per the diagnosis, the petitioner no. 3 suffers from disorder of ‘speech &
amp;amp; language’ and has 54% permanent disability in relation to her mouth
as per the governing guidelines notified by the Government of India under the
2016 Act.
12. The Admission Notice dated 02.09.2026, referred above, was for admission into
the first year of the MBBS/BDS courses in Government Medical & Dental
st
Colleges of Assam after completion of 1 Round of Online Counseling, Session :
2026.
13. By the Admission Notice, it was informed that the provisional select list of
candidates after the first round of online counseling for admission into the first
year of the MBBS/BDS courses, Session : 2026 in the Government Medical &
Dental Colleges of Assam under Assam State quota seats had been published
and the same was made available in the official website of the Directorate of
Medical Education, Assam. All candidates who were provisionally selected under
PwD category [DIVYANG] were permitted to report with all their relevant
certificates in original at the office of the Principal cum Chief Superintendent,
Gauhati Medical College & Hospital [GMCH, Guwahati for verification of their
disability status by the Medical Board on 03.09.2026 and 04.09.2026, failing
which, his / her allotment would be cancelled. It was further notified that all
provisionally selected candidates were to report to the office of the Principal of
the respective Medical Colleges as per the terms and conditions stated therein
for admission on 04.09.2026 and 05.09.2026, failing which his/her allotment
was to be cancelled.
14. It is the common case of all the three petitioners that subsequent to the
Admission Notice dated 02.09.2026, all of them reported at the GMCH either on
03.09.2026 or on 04.09.2026. To be specific, the petitioner no. 1 reported at
the GMCH on 03.09.2026 and had undergone the process before the Medical
Assessment Board at the GMCH on 03.09.2026. Both the petitioner no. 2 and
Page No. 9/25
petitioner no. 3 reported at the GMCH on 04.09.2026 and have undergone the
process before the Medical Assessment Board at the GMCH on 04.09.2026.
15. I have heard Mr. D. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner no. 1; Mr.
A.H.M.R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner no. 2; and Mr. I.H.
Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner no. 3. I have also heard Mr. D.P. Bora,
learned Standing Counsel, Health & Family Welfare Department, Government of
Assam for the State respondents and Mr. D. Baidya, learned Standing Counsel,
National Medical Commission [NMC].
16. It is the common contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
that after their appearance before the Medical Assessment Board at the GMCH
either on 03.09.2026 or n 04.09.2026 they were not served with the findings
recorded by the Medical Assessment Board. It is submitted that after
appearance before the Medical Assessment Board, they were only informed
verbally that they were not found eligible to get admission in the State Medical
Colleges as candidates under the PwBD category.
17. Mr. Gogoi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner no. 1 has contended
that as the petitioner no. 1 was not provided with the findings recorded by the
Medical Assessment Board either on the date of his appearance or subsequent
thereto, the petitioner no. 1 being in dark, was prevented from filing an appeal
against the decision of the Medical Assessment Board as per the appellate
mechanism provided in Clause 13 of the Guidelines on Assessment of Persons
with Benchmark Disabilities [PwBD] for Admission to the MBBS Course, 2026
[‘the Guidelines, 2026’, for short]. He has submitted that when he was not
given admission by the authorities in the Tezpur Medical College which he
visited along with all the testimonials after 03.09.2026 and also, not provided
with the findings recorded by the Medical Assessment Board, the petitioner no.
1 had to prefer the writ petition on 08.09.2026. He has submitted that initially,
the case of the petitioner no. 1 was resisted on the ground that the petitioner
no. 1 belongs to PwBD category with a visual disability percentage of 40% and
Page No. 10/25
as per NMC Guidelines/Notifications, a person with visual disability having
disability percentage of 40% and above cannot be permitted for admission in a
State Medical College. Mr. Gogoi has contended that such resistance was based
on the basis of the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education [Amendment]
2019 [‘the Regulation 2019’, for short]. He has contended that in the course of
deliberation, it was brought to the notice that it was not the Regulation 2019,
which could be made applicable to the case of the petitioner no. 1. But for
admission on the basis of NEET [UG] – 2026, the provisions of the Guidelines,
2026, which have been notified on 27.07.2026, are to be made applicable. He
has further contended that the Medical Assessment Board requires to follow the
Guidelines, 2026 and in the process of assessment, the Medical Assessment
Board shall have to examine essential competence, functional competence and
reasonable accommodation to arrive at the ultimate decision as to whether the
candidate seeking admission into the MBBS course under PwBD category has
the capacity to undergo the MBBS course or not. According to him, the
assessment done by the Medical Assessment Board in the case of the petitioner
no. 1 falls short of the requirements laid down in the Guidelines, 2026.
18. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner no. 2, apart from
adopting the common aspects highlighted by Mr. Gogoi, has submitted that
pursuant to a Notice dated 30.07.2026 of the Medical Counseling Committee
[MCC], Directorate General of Health Services [DGHS], Government of India
[GoI], the petitioner no. 2 appeared before the Silchar Medical College and
Hospital [SMCH] on 01.09.2026. Referring to the Eligibility Certificate issued by
the Medical Assessment Board of the SMCH, it is contended that the petitioner
no. 2 was found eligible with reasonable accommodation by the Medical
Assessment Board at the SMCH, as per the Eligibility Certificate issued on
01.09.2026. He has contended that the Medical Assessment Board of the SMCH
is one of the Medical Assessment Board accredited by the MCC, DGSH, GoI vide
the Notice dated 30.07.2026. He has pointed out that subsequent to the
Admission Notice dated 02.09.2026, the petitioner again appeared before the
Medical Assessment Board at the GMCH on 04.09.2026. But surprisingly, in the
Page No. 11/25
Eligibility Certificate issued by the Medical Assessment Board of the GMCH on
05.09.2026, the petitioner no. 2 has been declared ineligible. Therefore, there
are two contradictory findings recording eligibility or ineligibility as regards the
petitioner no. 2 for getting admission in the first year of the MBBS course. As a
result of the subsequent findings and decision recorded by the Medical
Assessment Board at the GMCH, the petitioner no. 2 has been arbitrarily denied
admission into Dhubri Medical College. As the findings recorded by the Medical
Assessment Board at the SMCH was earlier to the findings recorded by the
Medical Assessment Board at the GMCH, the findings and the decision recorded
by the Medical Assessment Board at the SMCH should prevail and a direction is
clearly called for the admission of the petitioner no. 2 in the State Medical
College, more particularly, Dhubri Medical College.
19. Mr. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner no. 3 has submitted
that pursuant to the Admission Notice dated 02.09.2026, the petitioner no. 3
appeared before the Medical Assessment Board at the GMCH on 04.09.2026.
Mr. Saikia has reiterated that the petitioner no. 3 was informed about the
adverse decision taken against the petitioner only, and the findings recorded by
the Medical Assessment Board, in writing, were not provided to the petitioner
no. 3. Mr. Saikia has pointed out that the petitioner no. 3 had again appeared
before the Medical Assessment Board at the SMCH on 08.09.2026 and as per
the findings recorded by the Medical Assessment Board at the SMCH, the
petitioner no. 3 has been found eligible for admission into the MBBS Course
with reasonable accommodation.
20. It is the common contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the
findings recorded by the Medical Assessment Board at the GMCH after
assessment of liability of the petitioners on their appearance on 26.10.2026
cannot be made a basis for denial of admission to the petitioners. According to
them, such assessment by the Medical Assessment Board at the GMCH on
26.10.2026 is not envisaged in the Guidelines, 2026. The findings recorded
regarding eligibility of the petitioners for admission into the first year of the the
Page No. 12/25
MBBS Course, either with or without reasonable accommodation, should prevail
for the purpose of considering their cases and therefore, the act of denying the
admission to the petitioners into the MBBS Course in the State Medical Colleges
under the State Quota is clearly arbitrary and illegal and not in conformity with
the Guidelines 2026.
21. Mr. Baidya, learned counsel appearing for the NMC has submitted that when an
issue cropped up regarding the applicable regulation/guidelines for admission
into the MBBS Courses on the basis of scores recorded in the NEET [UG] – 2026
for candidates applying under the PwBD Category, an affidavit has been filed
clarifying the position. He has submitted that the Guidelines on assessment of
‘Persons with Benchmark Disabilities [PwBD]’ for admission into the MBBS
Course 2026, notified on 27.07.2026, have been made applicable for admission
on the basis of scores obtained in the NEET [UG] – 2026. He has submitted that
the Guidelines, 2026 have prescribed for a uniform, competency based and
function oriented framework for assessment of PwBD candidates seeking
admission to the MBBS Course.
22. Mr. Borah, learned Standing Counsel, Health & Family Welfare Department,
Government of Assam appearing for the State respondents has submitted that
the Notice dated 30.07.2026 of the MCC, DGHS, GoI was a general notice
meant for admission of candidates from the PwBD category in all the Medical
Colleges across India inclusive of the Central quota and State quota. Pursuant
to the Notice dated 30.07.2026, the State Government had issued the
st
Admission Notice on 02.09.2026 for the specific purpose of admission into 1
year of the MBBS Course for Session : 2026 in the Government Medical Colleges
under the Assam State Quota. Therefore, the candidates applying under the
PwBD category were required to report to the specifically designated Medical
Assessment Board, notified therein, that is, the Medical Assessment Board at
the GMCH, Guwahati. He has contended that it is only the findings recorded by
the designated Medical Assessment Board at the GMCH which are relevant, and
not the findings of any other Medical Assessment Board, as mentioned in the
Page No. 13/25
Notice dated 30.07.2026 in view of Clause 6 therein. Therefore, the claims of
the petitioner no. 2 and the petitioner no. 3 based on the findings recorded by
the Medical Assessment Board at the SMCH are not relevant at all. He has
further submitted that it was during the pendency of the three writ petitions,
the State respondents had suggested and apprised to the court, they were
agreeable to carry out fresh assessment of the disability of all the three
petitioners and the date, 26.10.2026 was fixed for the said purpose. All the
three petitioners had appeared before the Medical Assessment Board at the
GMCH again on 26.10.2026. Mr. Borah has contended that after appearance
before the designated Medical Assessment Board on 26.10.2026, it would not
be open for the petitioners to contend that the findings recorded by the Medical
Assessment Board at the GMCH after assessment on 26.10.2026 would not be
valid. He has submitted that the findings recorded by the Medical Assessment
Board at the GMCH after assessment of disability of the petitioners on
26.10.2026 are in conformity with the findings recorded by the Medical
Assessment Board at the GMCH. Therefore, no exception is called for. He has
submitted that the assessments carried out at the first instance and also, at the
second instance by the Designated Medical Assessment Board are strictly in
adherence to the Guidelines 2026 and the Designated Medical Assessment
Board consisted of seven experts. He has also submitted that all the aspects
including essential competencies, functional competencies and reasonable
accommodation were taken into consideration by the Designated Medical
Assessment Board at the GMCH and such findings, assessments and decisions
are of a body of domain experts, do not call for any interference unless any
exceptional cases are made out, which are not the cases in these three cases.
23. I have duly considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the
parties and I have also gone through the materials brought on record by the
parties through their pleadings. I have also considered the provisions under the
contents of ‘the Guidelines regarding admission of students with ‘specified
disabilities’ under the RPWD Act with respect to admission in MBBS Course’, as
amended by ‘the Regulations on Graduate Medical Admission [Amendment],
Page No. 14/25
2019’ and ‘the Guidelines on assessment of Persons with Benchmark Disabilities
[PwBD] for admission to the MBBS Course [Amendment], 2026’.
24. The permanent disability suffered by the three petitioners herein, as recorded in
the Disability Certificates issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and
Empowerment, Government of India have also already mentioned hereinabove.
25. Section 32 of the RPWD Act 2016 has been prescribed for reservation in Higher
Educational Institutions. As per Section 32[1], all Government Institutions of
Higher Education and other Higher Education Institutions receiving aid from the
Government shall reserve not less than 5% seats for PwBDs. It is not the case
of the parties that no provision has been made for 5% reservation in the State
Medical Colleges of Assam to any lesser extent than 5%.
26. Before making a reference to the Guidelines 2026, it is apposite to refer to the
Guidelines regarding admission of students with specified disabilities under the
RPWD Act, 2016 with respect to admissions in MBBS, as amended by ‘the
Regulations on Graduate Medical Education [Amendment], 2019’. It was
mentioned that the Certificate of Disability shall be issued in accordance with
the RPWD Rules, 2017 notified in the Gazette of India by the Ministry of Social
Justice and Empowerment, GoI. However, the extent of specified disability in a
person shall be assessed in accordance with the Guidelines for the purpose of
assessing the extent of specified disability in a person included under the RPWD
Act, 2016 notified in the Gazette of India by the Ministry of Social Justice and
Empowerment. The minimum degree of disability should be 40% [benchmark
disability] in order to be eligible for availing reservation for persons with
specified disability.
26.1. In the said Guidelines/Regulation – 2019, it was inter-alia mentioned as under
:-
Sl. Disability Type of Specified Disability Range
Page No. 15/25
No. Type Disabilities Disability
Eligibility for
Eligible for
Not
Medical
Medical
Eligible
Courses Not
Course
for
Eligible for
Eligible for
Medical
PwD Quota
PwD Quota
Course
1. Physical
Less than 40%
Equal To
Disability
disability (i.e.
Or More
a. Blindness
Category 0
Than
B. Visual
(10%), I
40%
Impairment
(20%) & II
Disability
(*)
(30%)
(I.E.
b. Low vision
Category
III and
above)
D. Speech &
Less than 40% Equal to
language
Organic/neurol
or more
disabilities
ogical courses
than 40%
Disability
27. In a Judgment dated 15.10.2020, delivered in the case of Omkar Ramchandra
Gond vs. Union of India, [2024] 14 SCC 158 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India gave a direction to the National Medical Commission [NMC] to issue
revised regulations and guidelines in supersession of the Guidelines of 2019
with regard to admission of students with specified disabilities under the RPwD
Act with respect to the MBBS Course. The NMC was also directed to constitute a
new committee of domain experts. A further observation was made to the
effect that the communication of the Ministry of Social Justice and
Empowerment dated 25.01.2024 should also be taken into consideration.
28. On 27.07.2026, the NMC in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 10 and
Section 24 read with Section 57 of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019,
has issued the Guidelines, that is, ‘the Guidelines on assessment of Persons
with Benchmark Disabilities [PwBD] for admission to the MBBS Course, 2026’
Page No. 16/25
[‘the Guidelines, 2026] and the Guidelines have been made to come into force
on the date of its publication by the NMC.
29. As per the objectives of the Guidelines, 2026, competency based and function
oriented assessment framework have been put into place whereby the
determination of eligibility shall not rest solely upon the numerical percentage
or category of disability reflected in the UDID Card or other disability
certification. While the benchmark disability prescribed under the RPwD Act,
2016 shall continue to determine the eligibility for reservation under the PwBD
category, admission to MBBS Course shall be based upon an objective
evaluation of the candidates functional competencies, with regard to reasonable
accommodation, assertive technology, environmental accessibility and
contemporary advances in rehabilitation science.
29.1. The Guidelines, 2026 have prescribed for a designated Medical Assessment
Board for admission to the MBBS Course which would issue eligibility certificates
certifying the candidate’s eligibility or otherwise for admission to the MBBS
Course based on functional assessments, rather than merely certifying the
existence or extent of disability. It is the function and responsibility of the NMC
to prescribe Competency Based Medical Education [CBME] curriculam. The
definitions of ‘competency’, ‘essential competencies’ and ‘functional
competency’ have been provided in the Guidelines, 2026. As per Clause 3.18 of
the Guidelines, 2026, ‘reasonable accommodation’ shall have the same meaning
as assigned to under Section 2[y] of the RPwD Act, 2016.
29.2. The principles governing determination of eligibility have been set forth in
Clause 11.2 of the Guidelines and a designated Medical Assessment Board is
required to discharge its function fairly, objectively, transparently while
assessing the eligibility of a candidate under the Guidelines, 2026. The Medical
Assessment Board is required to verify and evaluate inter-alia the Permanent
Unique Disability Identity [UDID] Card issued by the competent authority under
the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities [DIVYANG],
Page No. 17/25
Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, GoI; the nature, extent and
stability of the specified disability and the underlying medical condition; the
candidate’s functional abilities in relation to the essential competencies
prescribed under the Competency Based Medical Education [CBME] curriculum;
the suitability and effectiveness of any assistive device, assistive technology or
adaptive aid used by the candidate; the feasibility of providing reasonable
accommodation to facilitate acquisition of the prescribed competencies; the
impact, if any, of the disability upon patient safety; and such other clinical,
functional or educational factors as may be relevant for determining the
candidate’s eligibility under these Guidelines.
30. Clause 12.6 of the Guidelines, 2026 has laid down to the effect that the Medical
Assessment Board shall issued an Eligibility Certificate, in the format specified in
the Schedule–II, certifying whether the candidate is [i] Eligible; [ii] Eligible with
Reasonable Accommodation, specifying the accommodation[s] recommended;
or [iii] Ineligible, together with the reasons recorded in accordance with Clause
12.4. Clause 12.4 has mentioned that a candidate shall be declared ineligible
only where the Medical Assessment Board, after due consideration of
reasonable accommodation and assistive technology, records, by a reasoned
and speaking order, that the candidate is unable to acquire the essential
competencies prescribed under the Competency Based medical Education
[CBME] curriculum or that the disability would pose a demonstrable and
unacceptable risk to patient safely which cannot be mitigated through
reasonable accommodation.
31. It is evident from the materials on record that all the three petitioners are vying
st
for seats in the 1 year of the MBBS Course in the State Quota in the State
Government Medical College. The same is evident from the provisional selection
list of candidates [Round-1] for Assam State Quota wherein the names of the
three petitioners have appeared in Assam NEET [UG] – 2026. The same is
relied on by all the three petitioners. At the cost of repetition, it is reiterated
that the petitioner no. 1, the petitioner no. 2 and the petitioner no. 3 were
Page No. 18/25
provisionally selected for admission under the PwD category in Tezpur Medical
College, Dhubri Medical College and Bongaigaon Medical College respectively.
32. In the Notice dated 30.07.2026, issued by the MCC, DGHS, GoI, it was
mentioned that in view of the Guidelines, 2026, the candidates applying under
the PwBD category were to obtain Eligibility Certificates for the purpose of
NEET [UG] Counseling – 2026 from the Medical Assessment Board of the MCC.
In the list enclosed as Annexure-1 thereto, the MCC listed the Medical
Assessment Boards wherefrom Eligibility Certificates were to be obtained by the
candidates applying under the PwBD Category for admission into the MBBS
Course. In the list provided in the Annexure-1, Assam Medical College,
Dibrugarh; Gauhati Medical College, Guwahati; and Silchar Medical College,
Silchar were included. It has been made specific in Clause 6 of the Notice dated
30.07.2026 that the candidates who wish to avail PwBD seat under 85% State
Quota, have to visit the State Medical Assessment Board for obtaining Eligibility
Certificate and the evaluation by the State Medical Assessment Board were to
be conducted as per the Guidelines, 2026. It is in the above context, the
Admission Notice dated 02.09.2026 is required to be examined.
33. It has been made specific in the Admission Notice dated 02.09.2026 for the
candidates that the provisional select list of candidates after the first round of
counseling for admission into the first year of the MBBS Course for Session :
2026 in the Government Medical Colleges of Assam under the State Quota had
already been published and all candidates provisionally selected under the
PwBD Category [DIVYANG] were required to report with all their relevant
certificates in original at the office of the Principal-cum-Chief Superintendent,
GMCH, Guwahati for verification of their disability status by the designated
Medical Assessment Board at the GMCH on 03.09.2026 and 04.09.2026. It is
only after verification of the disability status claiming admission under the PwBD
Category by the designated Medical Assessment Board at the GMCH, the
provisionally selected candidates would be required to report at the office of the
Principals of the respective State Medical Colleges wherein the candidates
Page No. 19/25
claiming admission under the PwBD Category like the three petitioners herein.
Meaning thereby, the candidates claiming admission into the first year of the
MBBS Course in the Government Medical Colleges of Assam under the Assam
State Quota had to be reported at the designated Medical Assessment Board
constituted at the GMCH and not to any other Medical Assessment Board, listed
in Annexure-1 to the Notice dated 30.07.2026, notified by the MCC, DGHS, GoI.
34. In the above view of the matter, the claims of the petitioner no. 2 and the
petitioner no. 3 made on the basis of Eligibility Certificates issued by the
Medical Assessment Board at the SMCH are found to be ones, which are not to
be taken into consideration in view of the specific condition laid down in the
Admission Notice dated 02.09.2026. It is the Eligibility Certificate issued only by
the designated Medical Assessment Board at the GMCH before which the
petitioner no. 2 appeared on 04.09.2026 and the petitioner no. 3 appeared on
04.09.2026, which are to be taken into consideration for the purpose of
considering their eligibility of admission into the State Medical Colleges under
85% State Quota wherein they were provisionally selected. In so far as the
petitioner no. 3 is concerned, after undergoing the assessment process before
the designated Medical Assessment Board at the GMCH on 04.09.2026, it does
not emerge from the official documents on record as to why the petitioner no. 3
again appeared before the Medical Assessment Board at the SMCH on
08.09.2026, though the reason for her appearance has been made in the
pleadings. The reasons recorded in respect of the petitioner no. 1 and the
petitioner no. 2 as to why the assessment made by the Medical Assessment
Board at the SMCH, although accredited by the MCC, cannot be taken into
consideration apply on all fours also in the case of the petitioner no. 3.
35. One common plea has been advanced by all the three petitioners that after
their appearance and assessment by the designated Medical Assessment Board
at the GMCH, they were not provided with the findings in writing by the
designated Medical Assessment Board immediately thereafter. Thereby, they
Page No. 20/25
were prevented unjustly from taking recourse by the appellate mechanism
provided in Clause 13 of the Guidelines 2026.
36. In the Admission Notice dated 02.09.2026, It was made clear that the
assessment of disability would be carried out by the designated Medical
Assessment Board at the GMCH on 03.09.2026 and 04.09.2026 and thereafter
the provisionally selected candidates would be required to report before the
concerned Medical Colleges wherein their names had already been shortlisted.
Therefore, it is clear that when the petitioners were not allowed to take
admission either on 04.09.2026 or on 05.09.2026 in terms of the Admission
Notice dated 02.09.2026 after being informed by the designated Medical
Assessment Board at the GMCH that they were not found eligible, the
petitioners could have easily invoked the appellate mechanism as per Clause
13.1 of the Guidelines, 2026. Thereafter, it has been provided therein that any
candidate aggrieved by the findings or decision of the designated Medical
Assessment Board could prefer an appeal before the appellate authority
constituted by the Directorate General of Health Sciences [DGHS], Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare, GoI within such time and in such manner as notified
the MCC from time to time.
37. A plea is taken by the petitioner no. 3 that the petitioner no. 3 had preferred an
appeal. However, from the memo of appeal, purported to have been filed by
the petitioner no. 3, it is noticed that the appeal was preferred by the petitioner
no. 3 before the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances,
GoI, which is not an appellate authority in terms of the Guidelines, 2026.
38. A contention is advanced during the course of the proceedings of the present
three writ petitions that the Eligibility Certificates issued to the petitioners,
allegedly much belatedly, after their assessment of disability on 03.09.2026 or
04.09.2026, were in not in accordance with the Guidelines-2026. It is a
contention that the designated Medical Assessment Board did not consider the
competencies, on case to case basis, as prescribed under the CBME Curriculum.
Page No. 21/25
In view of advancing such a plea, it was suggested by the State respondents
that they were agreeable to appearance of the petitioners before the
designated Medical Assessment Board at the GMCH and to review the findings
available with regard to the petitioners in respect of the functional
competencies strictly in adherence of the Guidelines-2026. It was submitted on
behalf of the State respondents that in the event the Medical Assessment Board
finds that the order regarding eligibility or otherwise of the petitioners could be
reviewed, then consequent orders would be passed.
39. Upon taking such suggestion, the petitioners were informed by the State
respondents that the designated Medical Assessment Board would sit again on
26.10.2026 and the petitioners, if they want to get the earlier assessment of
disability re-assessed by the designated Medical Assessment Board, they could
appear before the designated Medical Assessment Board at the GMCH on
26.10.2026. It was in response to such notice, all the three petitioners
appeared before the designated Medical Assessment Board at the GMCH on
26.10.2026.
40. The State respondents by way of affidavits have brought the findings recorded
by the designated Medical Assessment Board after assessment of disability of
the petitioners on 26.10.2026. The designated Medical Assessment Board
comprised of specialists from the concerned departments, that is, [i] HOD of
Orthopaedics, GMC&H, Guwahati; [ii] HOD of Psychiatry, GMC&H, Guwahati;
[iii] HOD of Neurology, GMC&H, Guwahati; [iv] HOD of Ophthalmology,
GMC&H, Guwahati; [v] HOD of ENT, GMC&H, Guwahati; [vi] HOD of
Hematology, GMC&H, Guwahati; and [vii] HOD of PMR [Physical Medicine and
Rehabilitation].
41. The findings recorded by the designated Medical Assessment Board at the
GMCH after assessment of disability of the three petitioners need a mention.
Page No. 22/25
42. The findings recorded as regards the petitioner no. 1 are to the effect that he
has ‘Compound Myopic Astigmatism with Ambyopia both eye’. His disability is
visual disability with 40% benchmark disability. After making assessment by the
designated Medical Assessment Board, more particularly, by an Eye Specialist
with calculations, the designated Medical Assessment Board on patient safety
assessment has recorded a finding that there is demonstrable risk to patient
safety, as per the CBME Curriculum. The Board has reached a finding that the
petitioner no. 1 cannot perform functional competence required under the
CBME Curriculum. It is also recorded that the petitioner no. 1 is not capable of
acquiring the essential competencies prescribed under the CBME Curriculum
despite consideration of reasonable accommodation. It has been recorded that
there is visual acuity with or without spectacle. With such findings, the
designated Medical Assessment Board in its Eligibility Certificate issued in terms
of Clause 12.6 of the Guidelines, 2026 has declared the petitioner as ineligible.
43. In respect of the petitioner no. 2, who also suffers visual disability like the
petitioner no. 1, the designated Medical Assessment Board has recorded in its
findings that petitioner no. 2 has ‘Ocular Albinism + Nystagmus both eyes’. It is
recorded that the petitioner no. 2 cannot perform functional competencies
required under the CBME Curriculum. On patient safety assessment, the Board
has recorded that there is demonstrable risk to patient safety in terms of the
CBME Curriculum. Before arriving at such findings, the assessments were made
with certain calculations and an assessment sheet, wherein the details were
explained through diagrams. It has been recorded that there is visual acuity
with or without spectacle.
44. A speech assessment was done in the case of the petitioner no. 3. According to
the Speech Intelligibility Test, the score is 4. The petitioner no. 3’s speech
disability percentage is 55%. The disability has been assessed as C.A.P.E. V
[OVCA Score], where the petitioner no. 3 scored 4 [four]. It is found recorded
that the petitioner no. 3 cannot perform functional competencies required
under the CBME Curriculum and is in need of regular speech therapy. In the
Page No. 23/25
Eligibility Certificate issues as per Clause 12.6 of the Guidelines, 2026, the
designated Medical Assessment Board has recorded that as per medical
diagnosis, the petitioner no. 3 has ‘Repaired Cleft Lip and Palate’ and thus, the
petitioner no. 3 cannot perform functional competencies required under the
CBME Curriculum. On assessment of ability to complete the MBBS course, the
Medical Assessment Board has recorded that the petitioner no. 3 is not capable
of acquiring the essential competencies prescribed under the CBME Curriculum
despite consideration of reasonable accommodation as the petitioner no. 3
cannot perform functional competencies required under the CBME Curriculum
and is in need of regular speech therapy. On patient safety assessment, the
Board has recorded there is demonstrable risk to patient safety as per CBME
Curriculum.
45. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the designated Medical
Assessment Board did not consider the aspect of accommodation. But, from a
reading of Clause 12.6, it is discernible that when after assessment of disability,
the Medical Assessment Board places the candidate in the ineligible category,
there is no scope for making him eligible with reasonable accommodation.
46. In Omkar Ramchandra Gond vs. Union of India and others, [2024] 14 SCC
158 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the Disability Assessment
Boards are inter-alia obliged to examine whether the candidate in the opinion of
the experts in the field is eligible to pursue the course or in other words,
whether the disability will or will not come in the way of the candidates
pursuing the course in question.
47. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Om Rathod vs. Director General of Health
Services and others, [2024] 10 SCR 2187 : 2024 INSC 836
, has gone into the
aspect of requirement of assessing the disability aspect on a wholesome basis.
It has been observed that the medical model of disability apparent in the
phrase must give way to a social model of disability which takes into account
the variety of experiences and outcomes which persons with disabilities have
Page No. 24/25
when they interact with different kinds of societies and accommodations. The
requirement of assessing the functional competence of a medical aspirant must
be done on a case to case basis. For example, for a proper realization of
reasonable accommodation, a person with disability must be identified using
the correct parameters and thereafter, the accommodations necessary have to
be determined on a case to case basis.
48. It has been observed in Om Rathod [supra] and also reiterated in Anmol vs.
Union of India and others, [2025] 2 SCR 1142 , that the key question for a
Disability Assessment Board is whether an individual with a disability, aided by
modern scientific tools and devices can enter into the MBBS program. Put
differently, the Disability Assessment Board must assess whether it is unfeasible
for the candidates to pursue a medical career with their disabilities. It has been
held that the courts are not expert bodies in matters of medicine. The
competent authority to adjudge the eligibility of a person to pursue a medical
course is the Disability Assessment Board. The courts have, however, the
jurisdiction to ensure that the manner in which the Board proceeds and
functions is in compliance with the established principles of law. But, ultimately,
the court will have to rely on the opinion of the Board to adjudicate the legal
remedies of a person with disability. The interference of courts is not to
supplant its opinions for that of the experts but to ensure that a holistic
evaluation of competence is conducted and that no person’s career is set at
naught with the stroke of a pen.
49. From the discussion made above, it is discernible that all the three petitioners
have undergone the assessment process before the designated Medical
Assessment Board at the GMCH on two occasions. The designated Medical
Assessment Board is found to have reached the same finding as regards the
ineligibility of the all the three petitioners to enter into the MBBS programme.
From the materials brought on record, specifically with regard to the
assessment for disability undertaken by the designated Medical Assessment
Board on 26.10.2026, it transpires that the petitioners were assessed as
Page No. 25/25
regards their eligibility or otherwise in reference to the CBME Curriculum and
from the standpoints of assessment of ability to complete the MBBS Course,
patient safety assessment, assessment of reasonable accommodation, etc. to
arrive at the final determination regarding eligibility or ineligibility or eligibility
with reasonable accommodation.
50. This Court is conscious of the fact that the assessments of disability of the
petitioners were made, on both the occasions by an expert body consisting of
seven experts, as mentioned hereinabove. In the absence of any specific
domain knowledge on such aspects, this Court finds no reason, much less
sufficient reason, to have any divergent view from the assessment made as
regards eligibility or otherwise of the petitioners by the designated Medical
Assessment Board.
51. In view of the observations made, reasons assigned and the findings reached,
this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners have not been able to
made out a case for any interference in so far as the Eligibility Certificates
issued by the designated Medical Assessment Board under Clause 12.6 of the
Guidelines, 2026. As the petitioners have been declared ineligible in the
Eligibility Certificates, the writ petitions are found to be devoid of merit.
Consequently, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, they are
dismissed. The interim order[s] passed earlier stand vacated. There shall,
however, be no order as to cost.
Ananta Konwar
2026.11.05 20:44:38 +05'30'
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant