Failure to affirmatively declare PwD status during registration forfeits eligibility for compensatory exam time and marks.

The appellant, a Person with Disability (PwD) suffering from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) with more than 40% disability, appeared for the JEE Mains and JEE Advanced 2025 examinations.

He alleged that he was denied compensatory time and accommodations during the exams despite requests to invigilators, leading to a loss of marks in the Chemistry section.

The appellant challenged the Single Judge’s dismissal of his writ petition, which had found that he failed to select the PwD option or the requirement for a scribe/extra time in his online application form.

The appellant contended he answered "No" to the PwD status questions due to confusion regarding the form's phrasing and his condition.

1. Whether the appellant, having declared himself as a non-PwD candidate in the application form and failing to submit the requisite certificates, is legally entitled to compensatory marks or alternative admission relief.

2. Whether the court can grant relief based on supernumerary seats or additional attempts after the conclusion of the admission process and counseling.

Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, regarding the maintainability of the writ appeal.

The JEE Advanced 2025 Information Bulletin and Brochure mandate that candidates with at least 40% disability must submit a specific certificate (Annexure-II) during registration to avail of compensatory time or scribe services.

Precedents concerning the rights and reasonable accommodations for PwD candidates: Vikas Kumar v. UPSC (2021) 5 SCC 370, Prince Jaibir Singh v. Union of India (2024) 11 SCC 793, and Atul Kumar v. Chairman (JoSAA) 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2684.

The Court observed that the appellant explicitly answered "No" to both critical questions in the registration form: "Are you a PwD candidate?" and "Do you have disability and having difficulty in writing?".

While the appellant claimed his OCD led to this confusion, the Court noted that the examination brochure clearly prescribed a mandatory procedure—specifically the submission of Annexure-II—to trigger the right to compensatory time.

Since the appellant failed to declare his status or submit the required format, the invigilators could not be faulted for denying extra time.

The Court distinguished the cited Supreme Court precedents, finding them inapplicable because the appellant's own failure to follow mandatory registration requirements precluded the claim of a "deprived legal right".

The Court affirmed the Single Judge's order, concluding that it was "too late in a day" to claim such rights after the examinations and counseling were concluded, and dismissed the appeal as devoid of merits.