903-WP-12696-26.doc Sharayu Khot. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12696 OF 2026 Mohammad Sameer Mohammad Shoeb Mapara …Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. …Respondents ---------- Ms. Pooja Thorat a/w Mr. Anukul Seth and Mr. Amar Bodke for the Petitioner. Mr. P.P. Kakade, Addl. GP a/w Ms. Vaishali Nimbalkar, AGP for the Respondent No. 1 and 5 – State. Dr. Dhruti Kapadia a/w Ms. Kavita Dhanuka for the Respondent – CET Cell. Dr. Mrunall Borrse, Assistant Prof, J.J.H. ---------- CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA J FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J DATE : 24 September 2026 ORDER : 1. By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has sought for quashing and setting aside of the Eligibility Certificate dated 27th August 2026 issued by Respondent No. 4, Appellate Board and Eligibility Certificate dated 17th August 2026 issued by Respondent 1/10 SHARAYU PANDURANG KHOT Digitally signed by SHARAYU PANDURANG KHOT Date: 2026.09.28 19:23:22 +0530 903-WP-12696-26.doc No. 5 - Medical Assessment Board (hereinafter referred to as “impugned Disability Certificate”) with further direction that the Petitioner be considered as eligible for admission to MBBS course under the PwD category. 2. The Petitioner applied and registered himself for appearing for NEET UG 2026 under OBC and PwD category on 21st February 2026. The NEET UG 2026 examination was conducted by National Testing Agency on 21st June 2026. 3. The Petitioner had scored 291/720 with 68.26 percentile in the NEET UG 2026 examination and which results were declared on 16th July 2026. 4. A Notification dated 7th August 2026 was issued whereby 65 hospitals have been designated and notified as the Medical Assessment Board for examining students under PwD category and five hospitals as Appellate Boards. 5. The impugned Disability Certificate was issued by Respondent No. 5 - Medical Assessment Board on 17th August 2026, 2/10 903-WP-12696-26.doc whereby the Petitioner was classified as ineligible to pursue the MBBS course. 6. The impugned Disability Certificate was issued by Respondent No. 4 - Appellate Board on 27th August 2026 confirming the findings of the Respondent No. 5 - Medical Assessment Board. 7. The Petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned Disability Certificates has filed the present Petition. 8. Ms. Thorat, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, has submitted that the impugned Disability Certificates issued by the Medical Assessment Board and the Appellate Board have not complied with the Guidelines on Assessment of Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) for admission to the MBBS Course, 2026, issued by the National Medical Commission (Under Graduate Medical Education Board) on 21st July 2026 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Guidelines”). She has in particular referred to clauses 3.23 and 3.24 of the said Guidelines, which provides for a speaking order in context of the Eligibility / Disability Certificate to be issued by the Medical Assessment Board and which shall be a written order 3/10 903-WP-12696-26.doc containing reasons, findings and conclusions of the Medical Assessment Board in support of its decision. Clause 3.24 provides for a reasoned decision, which means a decision supported by objective findings, functional assessment and reasons recorded in writing. She has submitted that the impugned Disability Certificates, which have been issued by the Medical Assessment Board and Appellate Board are not in compliance with the said clauses 3.23 and 3.24 of the said Guidelines. 9. Ms. Thorat has further submitted that the Petitioner is having disability, which is mentioned in the impugned Disability Certificates as “homonymous Hemianopia”. This has been defined as per Cleveland Clinic in their website, an extract of which is tendered and taken on record and marked “X” for identification as a symptom that makes a person see only on one side - right or left of the visual field of each of the person's eyes. This has also been defined as ‘half vision loss’. She has submitted that this only means 20 degree vision loss, which fact was required to be taken into consideration whilst arriving at the findings in the impugned Disability Certificates of the ineligibility of the Petitioner to pursue medical education. She has also placed reliance upon clause 3.9 of the said Guidelines, which 4/10 903-WP-12696-26.doc provides for functional competency which means the demonstrated ability of a candidate, with or without reasonable accommodation or assistive technology, to acquire and perform the essential competencies required under the Competency Based Medical Education Curriculum. She has submitted that such functional competency of the Petitioner as per the Competency Based Medical Education Curriculum has not have been assessed by the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 as borne out from the impugned Disability Certificates. 10. Ms. Thorat has further submitted that the Final Decision of the Appellate Board is provided in Step 5 of the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for appeal by NEET PwD candidates appearing before the Appellate Disability Assessment Board. This provides that upon completion of assessment and review of all relevant records, the Appellate Disability Assessment Board shall record its final decision regarding the candidate's disability status with a speaking order, percentage of disability and eligibility under the PwBD category for NEET Counseling. The impugned Disability Certificate issued by the Appellate Disability Assessment Board fails to comply with the SOP. She has submitted that the impugned Disability Certificate issued by the Appellate Board does not comply 5/10 903-WP-12696-26.doc with the format set out in Schedule II under clause 12.6 of the said Guidelines in that the Appellate Board has added ineligibility for pursuing medical education which is not there in the format. 11. Ms. Thorat has also brought to the notice of this Court that the Petitioner has been issued a driving license (annexed at Exh.D to the Petition) and submits that this could only have been issued upon the Petitioner satisfying the vision criteria for driving a vehicle. 12. Ms. Thorat has accordingly submitted that in view of the impugned Disability Certificates failing to comply with the said Guidelines, the Disability Certificates are required to be set aside and it is to be directed that the Petitioner is eligible for admission to MBBS course under the PwBD category. She has also submitted that the Supreme Court has extended reasonable accommodation to PwD candidates insofar as medical admission is concerned. 13. Mr. Kakade, learned Additional GP, appearing for the Respondent-State and Dr. Dhruti Kapadia, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 3 - State CET Cell, have vehemently opposed this 6/10 903-WP-12696-26.doc Petition. 14. They have submitted that the impugned Disability Certificates have been issued by two Authorities, viz., Respondent No.5 - Medical Assessment Board and Respondent No. 4 - the Appellate Board. They have submitted that the impugned Disability Certificates ought not to be questioned by this Court, particularly where reasoned decisions have been taken by the two Authorities insofar as the Petitioner being ineligible for pursuing medical education. 15. Further submission is made that this Court has in a series of Petitions taken a view that in the event, the Medical Assessment Board has arrived at a finding which disentitles the candidate from pursuing education, the finding has to be given due regard to and acted upon. They have submitted that in view of the finding of the two Authorities, viz. Medical Assessment Board and Appellate Board, that the Petitioner in the present case is ineligible for pursuing medical education, this Court is required to have due regard to the same and accordingly dismiss the present Petition. 7/10 903-WP-12696-26.doc 16. Having considered these submissions and perusing the said Guidelines, we are of the view that there is no infirmity in the impugned Disability Certificates issued by the two Authorities, viz. the Medical Assessment Board and the Appellate Board. The Petitioner has by filing the present Petition sought for this Court to question the Disability Certificates issued by the said two Authorities, on the ground of not properly evaluating the Petitioner's disability. 17. We do not consider it appropriate to question the Disability Certificates, which have been given by experts in the field, viz. five medical doctors in the Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Assessment Board and three medical doctors in the Disability Certificate issued by the Appellate Disability Assessment Board. 18. It is provided in Step 5 of the SOP issued for Appeal by NEET-PwBD candidates appearing before the Appellate Disability Assessment Board that the decision taken by the Appellate Board will stand final. The Appellate Disability Assessment Board having recorded its final decision that the Petitioner is ineligible for pursuing medical education, such decision cannot be questioned by this Court. 8/10 903-WP-12696-26.doc 19. We do not find any merit in the submission of Ms. Thorat that reasonable accommodation is required to be given to the Petitioner in that the Petitioner is only suffering from 20 degree vision loss and that due regard should be had to functional competency in that context. 20. The reliance placed by Ms. Thorat on the said Guidelines in that context, including the Competency Based Medical Education Curriculum, is in our view misplaced, particularly, in view of the medical assessment of the Petitioner having been done by the said two Authorities, who have found upon such assessment, the Petitioner to be ineligible for pursuing medical education. 21. The further submission made by Ms. Thorat as regards the addition to the format as prescribed for the Disability Certificate to be issued by the Appellate Medical PwBD Assessment Board is in our view also misconceived, in view of the Appellate Medical PwBD Assessment Board having discretion to add in its Final Decision, viz. the Petitioner is ineligible for pursuing medical education. Further, the online format cannot be sacrosanct and the Appellate Board always has the power to add to their decision in the circumstances of 9/10 903-WP-12696-26.doc the case before them. 22. The Supreme Court, in cases concerning Persons with Disability (PwD), has held that reasonable accommodation is required to be given in matters concerning post graduate courses, but the same yardstick cannot be applied to under graduate courses, particularly, where two Authorities, viz. the Medical Assessment Board and the Appellate Board, have found the candidate to be ineligible for pursuing medical education. Thus, reasonable accommodation of PwD is not applicable in the present case. 23. In that view of the matter, we find no merit in the present Petition, and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. [FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [R.I. CHAGLA J.] 10/10