Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 40436 (CAL)

SAHIN PARVEJ MONDAL v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

WPA/24129/2026 · 2026-09-14

Amrita Sinha

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present :- Hon’ble Justice Amrita Sinha WPA No. 24129 of 2026 Sahin Parvej Mondal Vs. Union of India & Ors. For the writ petitioner :- Mr. Samim Ahammed, Adv. Mr. Arka Maity, Adv. Ms. Ambiya Khatun, Adv. Mr. Danish Abbasi, Adv. For the State :- Mr. Pijush Biswas, Adv. Mr. Surajit Singh, Adv. For the National Medical Commission :- Mr. Sunit Kumar Roy, Adv. For respondent no. 4/NTA :- Mr. Abhirup Chakraborty, Adv. Heard on :- 14.09.2026 Judgment on :- 14.09.2026 Judgment uploaded on :- 15.09.2026 Amrita Sinha, J.:- 1. The petitioner participated in NEET (UG) 2026 Examination in the category of Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD). His all India NEET rank in the said category is 275043. 2. In support of his benchmark disability, the petitioner relies on the Unique Disability ID issued by the competent authority on 7th August, 2026 mentioning the petitioner’s percentage of disability as 60 and the nature of 2 disability as permanent. The petitioner is suffering from locomotor disability and the affected body part is his right lower limb. 3. As per the guidelines on assessment of persons with benchmark disabilities for admission to the MBBS course, 2026, a candidate is required to produce a disability certificate issued by the Medical Assessment Board. The candidate has to be functionally competent for being admitted in the said course. 4. In the instant case, the petitioner appeared before the Medical Assessment Board on 11th August, 2026 and, on assessment, the petitioner’s percentage of benchmark disability has been reduced from 60 to 30. The Medical Assessment Board assessed the functional competency of the petitioner and found that he has adequate ability to perform the competency based medical education curriculum. No assistive technology or other supportive measures have been found to be required for the petitioner. The petitioner has not been found to pose any risk to any patient. As the petitioner has been found to have only 30% disability, he has been found to be ineligible for reservation under PwBD category. 5. Challenging the assessment of the Medical Assessment Board, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority which re- assessed the disability of the petitioner and on 14th August, 2026 concluded that the petitioner was ineligible for reservation for benchmark disability as per the latest notified guidelines. 3 6. The Appellate Authority reiterated the finding that the candidate demonstrated functional competency, has the feasibility of reasonable accommodation and assistive technology, has the ability to successfully complete the MBBS course and acquire the prescribed competencies and he did not pose any risk to patient’s safety. 7. The petitioner is aggrieved by the act of the Medical Assessment Board and the Appellate Authority in reassessing the quantum of his disability. It has been submitted that the Medical Assessment Board does not have the authority to re-assess the quantum of disability of a candidate. The Medical Assessment Board is only required to verify and evaluate the functional capability of the candidate to pursue the course. 8. In support of such submission, the guidelines published by the National Medical Commission have been relied upon. 9. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Om Rathod v. Director General of Health Services reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3130. 10. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Mitadru Sau v. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 10317 wherein the Court, relying on Om Rathod (supra), was pleased to direct the respondent authorities to act in terms of the directions passed in the matter of Om Rathod (supra) and to treat the disability of the candidate as per the UDID card. 4 11. It has been submitted that the All India ranking of the petitioner in the PwBD category is such that he ought to get admission in a Government Medical College. 12. Learned advocate representing the National Medical Commission submits that the petitioner ought to report before the Appellate Authority for assessing his functionality to get admitted and to complete the subject course. 13. The aforesaid submission of the Commission is adopted by the learned advocate representing the State respondents. It has been submitted that the Assessment Board ought to verify and evaluate the eligibility of the candidate in accordance with the guidelines published by the Commission. The nature and extent of the disability of the candidate has to be verified. 14. Upon hearing the submissions made on behalf of all the parties and on perusal of the documents placed before this Court, it appears that the quantum of disability of the petitioner has already been ascertained and certified in the disability certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Hospital on 7th August, 2026 in accordance with the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. 15. The Unique Disability ID card has been issued by the authority under the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India. Relying on such Unique Disability ID card, the petitioner submitted the self-assessment certificate 5 and declared himself to be eligible for reservation as a disabled candidate with benchmark disability. 16. The Medical Assessment Board re-assessed the quantum of disability of the candidate and reduced the percentage of the same. The assessment of the Medical Assessment Board was affirmed by the Appellate Authority and the disability of the petitioner was found to be only 30 percent making him ineligible to fall within the bracket of benchmark disability. On account of reduction of the percentage of disability, the petitioner is unable to get the benefit of reservation under the category of benchmark disability. 17. As per Section 2(r) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, “person with benchmark disability” means a person with not less than forty percent of a specified disability where specified disability has not been defined in measurable terms and includes a person with disability where specified disability has been defined in measurable terms, as certified by the certifying authority. 18. The Unique ID for Persons with Disabilities project has been implemented to create a national database of Persons with Disabilities (PwDs) and issue a Unique Disability Identity Card (UDID) to each individual. The percentage of disability is determined upon assessment by competent authorities under the department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India. 6 19. Once the quantum of disability is assessed and UDID card issued reflecting such quantum, there is hardly any scope to reassess the same by any other authority not prescribed by law. 20. The position of law as settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard is very clear. The quantum of disability is to be assessed only by the authority prescribed under the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 which issues the disability certificate and the Unique Disability ID. The quantum of disability cannot be re-assessed by the Medical Assessment Board or the Appellate Authority. The aforesaid authorities are only required to assess the functionality of the candidate as to whether the candidate is in a position to take admission in the subject course. 21. For ascertaining the functionality of the candidate, the Medical Assessment Board assessed the functional competency, the reasonable accommodation, ability to complete the MBBS course and the patient’s safety assessment and found the same to be in favour of the petitioner. After the Medical Assessment Board decides all the above points in favour of the petitioner, the Medical Assessment Board could not have re-assessed the quantum of disability of the candidate and reduce the same from the percentage as disclosed in the disability certificate followed by the UDID card. 22. In view of the above, the Court is of the considered opinion that the conclusion of the Medical Assessment Board affirmed by the Appellate Authority that the petitioner is ineligible for PwBD reservation cannot be 7 sustained in the eye of law. Such conclusion of the authority stands set aside. 23. The quantum of the benchmark disability as assessed by the Competent Authority and reflected in the UDID card has to be taken as final. 24. As the Medical Board has found the petitioner to have successfully passed the functionality test, accordingly, the petitioner shall be provided the benefit as meant for the PwBD candidates. 25. A fresh eligibility certificate shall be issued by the Medical Assessment Board in favour of the petitioner strictly relying upon the quantum of disability as mentioned in the Unique Disability ID of the petitioner at the earliest but positively prior to the next round of counselling. 26. The petitioner will be entitled to participate in the next round of counselling relying on the eligibility certificate issued by the Medical Assessment Board relying upon the Unique ID of the petitioner. 27. The writ petition stands disposed of. 28. All parties to act on the basis of the server copy of this judgment duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 29. Certified server copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties or their advocate on record expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities. (Amrita Sinha, J.)