Gauhati HC Rejects 3 PwBD Aspirants’ MBBS Admission Pleas After Board Finds Essential Competencies Unmet Despite Accommodation

The three petitioners sought admission to MBBS courses in Assam Government Medical Colleges under the PwBD category after qualifying NEET (UG)-2026.

They were provisionally selected in the first round of State-quota counselling, but the designated Medical Assessment Board at Gauhati Medical College and Hospital (GMCH) found them ineligible following assessments on 3–4 September 2026.

Two petitioners relied on separate eligibility assessments by Silchar Medical College and Hospital, which had found them eligible, and all challenged the adequacy and communication of the GMCH Board’s findings.

During the proceedings, the petitioners underwent a further assessment by the GMCH Board on 26 October 2026; the Board again found all three ineligible, citing functional competencies and patient-safety concerns under the CBME curriculum.

Section 32 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) requires Government and aided higher-education institutions to reserve at least 5% of seats for persons with benchmark disabilities; Sections 2(r), 2(s), and 2(y) define benchmark disability, person with disability, and reasonable accommodation, while Section 16 addresses inclusive education and accommodation.

Under the NMC’s Guidelines on Assessment of Persons with Benchmark Disabilities for Admission to the MBBS Course, 2026, eligibility is determined by functional competence rather than disability percentage alone; the designated Medical Assessment Board must consider essential competencies, assistive technology, reasonable accommodation, and patient safety.

An “ineligible” decision requires a reasoned finding that the candidate cannot acquire essential competencies or presents an unmitigable, demonstrable patient-safety risk.

The Court also applied Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. Union of India, Om Rathod v. Director General of Health Services, and Anmol v. Union of India: assessment must be holistic and case-specific, courts must ensure the Board follows legal requirements, but should not substitute their own medical opinion for that of expert bodies.

The State’s Admission Notice required candidates seeking Assam State-quota seats under the PwBD category to undergo assessment by the designated GMCH Board. The Court therefore held that the Silchar Board’s assessments did not determine the petitioners’ eligibility for those seats.

The GMCH Board assessed the petitioners twice, and its October findings addressed their functional competencies, ability to complete the course, reasonable accommodation, and patient safety. It gave individual medical findings and concluded that each petitioner could not meet essential competencies and presented a demonstrable patient-safety concern.

In the absence of a sufficient basis to depart from those expert assessments, the Court declined to substitute its view for the Board’s.

All three writ petitions were dismissed, earlier interim orders were vacated, and no order as to costs was made.