NEET-UG PwBD candidates cannot lose reservation based on re-quantification by NMC medical boards, rules Allahabad High Court

The petitioners possessed disability certificates and Unique Disability ID (UDID) cards issued by the competent authorities under Section 57 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (“RPwD Act”), certifying benchmark disabilities of 45% in the case of Shubham Mishra, 50% in the case of Saurabh Rana and 40% in the case of Gulfam Ahmad.

Each petitioner appeared in NEET (UG)-2026 and sought admission to the MBBS course under the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) category.

Under the National Medical Commission’s Guidelines dated 27 July 2026, the petitioners underwent assessment by Medical Assessment Boards for functional competency.

The Boards found them capable of successfully completing the MBBS course and acquiring the prescribed competencies; however, they either reduced or disregarded the disability percentage recorded in the statutory disability certificates and declared the petitioners ineligible for PwBD reservation.

In Shubham Mishra’s case, the certified disability was reduced from 45% to 20%; the appellate Board thereafter declared him ineligible under the PwBD category.

The petitioners challenged the impugned eligibility certificates and appellate medical opinions, contending that the Medical Assessment Boards could assess functional competency but could not re-quantify or override the disability percentage certified by the statutory authority under the RPwD Act.

During the proceedings, the Court permitted the petitioners to participate in the ongoing NEET counselling as PwBD candidates.

Whether a Medical Assessment Board constituted under the NMC Guidelines could re-assess or reduce the percentage of disability recorded in a valid and subsisting disability certificate issued under Section 57 of the RPwD Act?

Whether the Medical Assessment Board’s jurisdiction was confined to assessing the petitioners’ functional competency to pursue and complete the MBBS course, with reasonable accommodation and assistive technology where necessary?

Whether the petitioners could be denied PwBD reservation despite possessing statutory disability certificates recording at least 40% benchmark disability and despite being found functionally competent for medical education?

The Court applied Sections 2(r), 56, 57 and 58 of the RPwD Act, 2016. Section 2(r) defines a person with benchmark disability as one certified to have not less than 40% of a specified disability; Sections 56 and 57 entrust the assessment, quantification and certification of disability to the competent statutory authority; and Section 58 prescribes the manner of issuance of the disability certificate.

A valid, unrevoked and subsisting disability certificate issued by the competent authority is binding on other authorities unless set aside in accordance with law.

The Court also applied Clauses 3.17 and 9.1 of the NMC Guidelines, which adopt the RPwD Act’s definition of PwBD and prescribe the 40% threshold.

Clauses 12.3(b) and 12.4 require an individualized, reasoned assessment of functional competency and prohibit ineligibility based solely on the percentage of disability; ineligibility may be declared only where the candidate cannot acquire essential CBME competencies or presents an unmitigable and demonstrable risk to patient safety.

The Court relied on Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2860; Om Rathod v. Director General of Health Services, (2024) 19 SCC 70; Anmol v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 387; and Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission, (2021) 5 SCC 370, for the principles that disability percentage alone cannot determine medical-course eligibility, that functional assessment must be individualized, and that reasonable accommodation is a constitutionally grounded obligation.

It also followed the coordinate Bench decision in Somya Pal v. Union of India, Writ-C No. 33739 of 2026, and other decisions of the Allahabad High Court.

The Court held that the statutory scheme assigns the power to quantify disability exclusively to the competent authority under Sections 56 and 57 of the RPwD Act.

The NMC Guidelines, being concerned with medical education, could not confer on a Medical Assessment Board the power to reopen or reduce that statutory determination.

The Board’s proper function was to determine whether, notwithstanding the certified disability, the candidate could pursue and complete the MBBS course with reasonable accommodation and assistive technology.

The petitioners’ certificates were valid, unrevoked and issued by the competent authorities, and each recorded disability of at least 40%.

Further, the Medical Assessment Boards had positively found the petitioners capable of completing the MBBS course and acquiring the prescribed competencies.

Consequently, the conclusions declaring them ineligible for PwBD reservation were based not on any adverse functional finding, but on an impermissible re-quantification of disability.

The Court held that the inclusion of a percentage column in the assessment form could not create substantive jurisdiction, and that Clause 12.4 did not authorize the Boards to alter the percentage recorded in the statutory certificates.

Such action was without jurisdiction and inconsistent with the RPwD Act, Article 14, and the principle of reasonable accommodation.

It quashed the conclusions declaring the petitioners “Ineligible for PwD Reservation” and “Ineligible under PwBD category”.

The findings that the petitioners were functionally competent and eligible to pursue medical education were preserved.

The respondents were directed to treat the petitioners as eligible PwBD candidates for NEET (UG)-2026 counselling, permit their participation in the remaining counselling rounds, and consider them for seat allotment according to their PwBD ranks and applicable counselling rules.

Any provisional allotment or joining already permitted pursuant to the interim orders was protected and directed to be regularised.

The Court clarified that functional competency assessment remains permissible, but it cannot be used to re-quantify or displace the disability percentage certified under Sections 56 and 57 of the RPwD Act.