NEET-PwBD candidates’ UDID disability percentage cannot be reassessed by medical boards, Calcutta High Court rules

The petitioner participated in NEET (UG) 2026 as a Person with Benchmark Disability (PwBD) and obtained an All India PwBD rank of 1936.

He relied on a UDID issued on 18 September 2025, certifying 60% temporary locomotor disability arising from congenital shortening of the right arm, valid until 19 January 2027.

Under the applicable MBBS admission guidelines, he appeared before the Medical Assessment Board, which reassessed his disability at 29%; the Appellate Authority subsequently assessed it at 32%, rendering him ineligible for PwBD reservation.

Both authorities nevertheless found him functionally competent to pursue the MBBS course, without assistive support, and capable of completing the course without posing a risk to patient safety.

The petitioner challenged the reassessment, contending that the Board and Appellate Authority could assess only his functional capability and not alter the disability percentage certified in his UDID.

1. Whether the Medical Assessment Board and the Appellate Authority could reassess and reduce the petitioner’s certified percentage of disability for determining eligibility under the PwBD category.

2. Whether, after finding the petitioner functionally competent to undertake the MBBS course, the authorities could deny him PwBD reservation on the basis of their reduced assessment of disability.

3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a fresh eligibility certificate and participation in the next round of counselling on the basis of the disability percentage recorded in his UDID.

The Court applied Section 2(r) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, under which a person with benchmark disability is one having not less than 40% of a specified disability, as certified by the competent authority.

It held that the competent authority prescribed under the Act, which issues the disability certificate and UDID, determines the quantum of disability, and that such quantum cannot be reassessed by a Medical Assessment Board or Appellate Authority not authorised by law.

The Medical Assessment Board’s role under the admission guidelines is confined to assessing functionality, including reasonable accommodation, ability to complete the course, prescribed competencies, and patient safety.

The Court relied on Om Rathod v. Director General of Health Services , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3130, and followed the principle applied by the Coordinate Bench in Mitadru Sau v. State of West Bengal & Ors. , 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 10317, that the disability recorded in the UDID must be accepted for determining PwBD status.

Statutory provisions under the 2016 Act prevail over inconsistent administrative guidelines.

The petitioner’s 60% disability had already been assessed and certified by the competent authority under the statutory framework and was reflected in his UDID.

Since Section 2(r) recognises benchmark disability by reference to the disability certified by the competent authority, the subsequent reduction to 32% by the Medical Assessment Board and Appellate Authority could not lawfully deprive the petitioner of PwBD status.

The authorities were entitled to determine whether the petitioner was functionally capable of undertaking the MBBS course, but both bodies had answered that question in his favour, finding him functionally competent, capable of completing the course, and not a risk to patient safety.

Having accepted his functional suitability, the Board exceeded its jurisdiction by reassessing the quantum of disability and thereby applying a second, inconsistent benchmark for reservation eligibility.

Their conclusion that the petitioner was ineligible for PwBD reservation was set aside.

The disability percentage recorded by the competent authority in the petitioner’s UDID was held to be final for this purpose.

As the petitioner had passed the functionality assessment, the Court directed IPGME&R, Kolkata, to issue a fresh eligibility certificate relying on the UDID disability percentage by 23 September 2026.

The petitioner was permitted to participate in the next round of counselling on the basis of that certificate, and the writ petition was disposed of.