Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Raman Khandelawal Son Of Shri Anil ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 11 November, 2025
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2025:RJ-JP:43235]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12414/2025
Raman Khandelawal Son of Shri Anil Natani, Aged About 18
Years, Resident of 29, Shanti Colony, Bas Badanpura, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Medical
and Health, Government Secretariat, Government of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Office of Chairman, NEET-UG Medical and Dental
Admission/Counseling Board-2025, through its Chairman,
S.M.S. Medical College, JLN Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. National Medical Commission through its Secretary,
Pocket-14, Sector-8, Dwarka Phase-I, New Delhi.
4. Saniya Bano Daughter of Shri Sayed Majeet Khan,
Registration ID RN-10587 through office of Chairman,
NEET-UG Medical and Dental Admission/Counseling
Board-2025, through its Chairman, S.M.S. Medical
College, JLN Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
5. Deputy Director General (Medical Education), Medical
Counselling Committee, Directorate General of Health
Services (DGHS), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Government of India, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
----Respondents
Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11604/2025 Vaishnavi Agarwal D/o Sanjay Agarwal, aged about 17 Years, R/o Udai Mod, Gangapur City through her Natural Guardian Shri Sanjay Agarwal
----Petitioner Versus
1. Union of India through Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, Room No. 201-D, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110011 through its Secretary.
2. Directorate General of Health Services, Medical Counselling Committee, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi- 110011 through its Director General.
(Uploaded on 11/11/2025 at 03:44:14 PM) (Downloaded on 11/11/2025 at 09:16:27 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:43235] (2 of 19) [CW-12414/2025]
3. National Testing Agency, First Floor, NSIC-MDBP Building, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi 110020 though its Member Secretary.
4. The SMS Medical College, Jaipur through its Principal
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Himanshu Jain with Ms. Apoorva Agarwal Mr. Yashraj Kumawat Mr. Avinash Bhardwaj Mr. Divyansh Choudhary Mr. Jatin Sharma Dr. T.N. Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yash Joshi with Ms. Ritika Naruka Ms. Tanvisha Pant Ms. Monisha Agarwal Mr. Vivek Guwalani Mr. M.S. Raghav with Mr. Vishwas Saini & Mr. Mananjay Singh Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG Mr. Angad Mirdha Ms. Manjeet Kaur with Ms. Taruna & Mr. Garvit Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment REPORTABLE Reserved on 28/10/2025 Pronounced on 11/11/2025
1. In the present batch of writ petitions, the scope of the controversy involved, albeit not limited to but is broadly and predominantly defined by the challenge raised regarding the arbitrary and illegal action of the respondents of not considering the candidature of the petitioners for professional course of MBBS, pursuant to NEET-UG Examination, 2025 albeit the petitioners stand high in order of merits; against the validity of provisional combined list (Counseling Round - I) dated 10.08.2025 for PWD candidates, wherein the petitioners have been excluded on the ground of their physical disability; as to the action of respondents (Uploaded on 11/11/2025 at 03:44:14 PM) (Downloaded on 11/11/2025 at 09:16:27 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:43235] (3 of 19) [CW-12414/2025] of not following the guidelines spelled out in the ratio of Om Rathore vs. Director General of Health Service and Ors. by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and vis-à-vis the consequent guidelines issued by the National Medical Commission dated 19.07.2025 and 21.07.2025. Consequently, considering the fact that the writ petitions warrant adjudication on common questions of law and fact; with the consent of learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the parties, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12414/2025 titled as Raman Khandelawal Son of Shri Anil Natani Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. is being taken up as the lead case. It is cautiously clarified that any discrepancies in the present batch of writ petitions, pertain purely to the factual narratives contained therein and not vis-à-vis the questions of law to be determined by this Court; the instant judgment shall be applicable on the petition connected herein/henceforth on mutatis mutandis basis.
2. The lead petition has been filed with the following prayers:
"i. By appropriate writ, order or direction the action of the respondents of not considering the candidature of petitioner for admission into Medical Course under PwD Category, pursuant to NEET UG-2025 may be declared as illegal, arbitrary and against the spirit of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. ii. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the provisional merit list dated 10.08.2025 may be quashed and set aside and Respondents may be directed to prepare fresh merit list for admission in Medical Course pursuant to NEET UG-2025, while including the name of the Petitioner and accordingly, Petitioner may be considered for admission in consonance with his merit and preference, for admission to Medical Course. iii. Any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the Petitioner."
SUBMISSIONS BY LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:
(Uploaded on 11/11/2025 at 03:44:14 PM) (Downloaded on 11/11/2025 at 09:16:27 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:43235] (4 of 19) [CW-12414/2025]
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset contended that the petitioners have been unjustly denied consideration for admission to the MBBS course under the NEET UG-2025 examination in the category of Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PWD). It is submitted that despite securing a meritorious ranks and marks in the said category, the petitioner's candidature has been arbitrarily excluded from the merit list dated 10.08.2025, which is under challenge in the present proceedings to the extent of such exclusion.
4. It is further submitted that, as per the details reflected in the NEET UG-2025 online application form (Annexure-2 in lead petition), the petitioners secured 420 and 500 marks respectively and stood meritorious under the PWD category. The petitioners were duly issued disability certificates by the competent authority certifying 55% permanent locomotor disability of the upper limb. The said certificate (Annexure-5 in lead petition) was issued strictly in accordance with the National Medical Commission (NMC) Guidelines for Assessment of Disability for Admission to Undergraduate Medical Courses for the Academic Year 2025-26, and was subject to final verification by the designated authority.
5. It was submitted that the cause of action giving rise to the present writ petitions arose when the respondents, in an arbitrary and non-transparent manner, rejected the candidature of the petitioners along with six other similarly placed candidates, thereby acting in contravention of the applicable NMC Guidelines and binding judicial precedents.
6. Learned counsel further apprised this Court that pursuant to the filing of the instant writ petitions, this Court, vide (Uploaded on 11/11/2025 at 03:44:14 PM) (Downloaded on 11/11/2025 at 09:16:27 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:43235] (5 of 19) [CW-12414/2025] interim order dated 24.09.2025, directed the respondents to constitute an appropriate Medical Board for reassessment of the petitioner's disability. However, despite such directions, the Expert Medical Board, as reflected in Annexure-AA/2, once again rejected the candidature of the petitioners without assigning cogent or sustainable reasons.
7. It was vehemently contended that the said rejection is in manifest disregard of the legislative intent embodied in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which mandates equal opportunity, non-discrimination, and reasonable accommodation in matters of education and employment. The impugned action of the respondents, it is urged, is also violative of the principles of reasonable accommodation and the inclusive theory, which require a humane, pragmatic, and sympathetic consideration of cases pertaining to persons with disabilities.
8. Subsequently, it was urged that the constitution of the Medical Board itself suffered from inherent infirmity, inasmuch as it lacked inclusion of an expert possessing requisite specialization or experience in evaluating cases involving upper limb locomotor disabilities. Consequently, the assessment carried out by such an improperly constituted Board cannot be accorded sanctity in the eyes of law. In support of the submissions made insofar, learned counsel placed reliance upon the a catena of judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, inter alia, Omkar Ramchandra Gond vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in AIR 2024 SC 5177, Anmol vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2025 INSC 256, and Kabir Paharia vs. National Medical Commission & Ors., reported in 2025 INSC 623, to contend that the respondents (Uploaded on 11/11/2025 at 03:44:14 PM) (Downloaded on 11/11/2025 at 09:16:27 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:43235] (6 of 19) [CW-12414/2025] were under an obligation to ensure fair, inclusive, and uniform assessment of disability in accordance with the statutory scheme and judicial dicta.
9. On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, it was humbly prayed that the writ petitions be allowed, and appropriate directions be issued to the respondents to include the petitioners in the PWD merit list for admission to the MBBS course under NEET UG-2025, by treating the petitioners as eligible in the concerned category.
SUBMISSIONS BY LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:
10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the National Medical Commission (NMC) as well as the respondent authorities have emphatically contended that the entire process undertaken for assessment and determination of eligibility of candidates under the category of Persons with Benchmark Disabilities has been conducted in strict conformity with the mandate of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the applicable NMC Guidelines, and the various public notices issued in that regard. It was submitted that the NMC Guidelines for Assessment of Disability for Admission to Undergraduate Medical Courses dated 18.07.2025, when read conjointly with the Public Notice dated 21.07.2025, have been meticulously adhered to, in letter and spirit.
11. It was asserted that these guidelines were framed after due consultation with the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment and are in consonance with the object and scheme of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the ratio (Uploaded on 11/11/2025 at 03:44:14 PM) (Downloaded on 11/11/2025 at 09:16:27 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:43235] (7 of 19) [CW-12414/2025] laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Om Rathod vs. The Director General of Health Services & Ors., reported in 2024 INSC 836, thereby ensuring a uniform, transparent, and nationally consistent approach towards disability inclusion in higher medical education.
12. It was further contended that the reliance placed by the petitioners on aforecited judicial precedents is misplaced, inasmuch as the ratio of those judgments has already been duly considered and duly incorporated while framing and implementing the present guidelines. Thence, the interim guidelines dated 18.07.2025 are fully compliant, not only with the statutory framework of the 2016 Act, but also with the directives and advisory communications issued by the competent ministry at the Union level.
13. Learned counsel further submitted that during the course of the eligibility assessment, all candidates under the PWD category were subjected to a uniform and objective evaluation process by duly constituted Medical Boards comprising experts of relevant specializations, including those experienced with similar types of disabilities. Out of the numerous candidates assessed, only seven were found not functionally eligible for the MBBS course, having regard to considerations of patient safety and clinical competence, as determined on the basis of the functional ability test and expert evaluation. In each such case, including that of the petitioners, a speaking and reasoned order was passed by the competent Medical Board. Nevertheless, no allegation of mala fides, bias, or procedural impropriety has been levelled or (Uploaded on 11/11/2025 at 03:44:14 PM) (Downloaded on 11/11/2025 at 09:16:27 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:43235] (8 of 19) [CW-12414/2025] substantiated against the Medical Board or any of its members; their competence, expertise, and objectivity in assessing functional eligibility cannot, therefore, be called into question.
14. Consecutively, it was contended that while the principle of inclusion under the 2016 Act is of utmost importance, the same must necessarily be balanced against the imperative of ensuring patient safety and maintaining the required standard of clinical competence expected of medical practitioners. In view of the categorical finding recorded by the Medical Board that the petitioners were as "not functionally eligible" for admission to the MBBS course, the rejection of the petitioner's candidature is fully justified and does not suffer from any legal or procedural infirmity.
15. Nonetheless, the judgments relied upon by the counsel representing the petitioners are distinguishable on facts and have no application to the present case. Accordingly, it was prayed that the present writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS:
16. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and upon an assiduous perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is devoid of merit and does not warrant interference in exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
17. The principal grievance raised by the petitioner pertains to non-inclusion in the PWD merit list for admission to the MBBS course under the NEET UG-2025 examination. The petitioners (Uploaded on 11/11/2025 at 03:44:14 PM) (Downloaded on 11/11/2025 at 09:16:27 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:43235] (9 of 19) [CW-12414/2025] have alleged that the rejection of their candidature was arbitrary and contrary to the spirit of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, as well as the National Medical Commission (NMC) Guidelines framed thereunder. Further, the petitioners had submitted their online applications for admission to the MBBS course under the Physically Handicapped (PWD) category for the NEET UG-2025 examination. Their names initially found place in the provisional merit list. However, in accordance with the prescribed procedure, they were subjected to medical evaluation by a duly constituted Competent Medical Board comprising five members. Despite possessing valid disability certificates issued by the competent authority, the petitioners were declared functionally ineligible after due medical assessment conducted by the said Board.
18. The respondents, on the other hand, have justified the action taken, asserting that the assessment process was carried out in strict adherence to the governing statutory framework, guidelines, and judicial precedents.
19. It is pertinent to note that the entire process was undertaken in compliance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Om Rathod (supra), the provisions of the Act of 2016 and the directives of the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment dated 12.03.2024. Pursuant to the said judgment and statutory mandate, the National Medical Commission (NMC) held detailed deliberations to evolve a uniform and equitable framework for ensuring inclusive medical education for persons with disabilities, particularly in relation to their participation in (Uploaded on 11/11/2025 at 03:44:14 PM) (Downloaded on 11/11/2025 at 09:16:27 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:43235] (10 of 19) [CW-12414/2025] graduate medical education governed by the MBBS Regulations. The NMC Guidelines, as referred to in paragraph seven herein, delineate the objectives, guiding principles, and methodology for functional competency-based assessment of candidates under the PWD category. Nonetheless, these guidelines comprehensively cover aspects relating to the aim and objective, preamble and introduction, functional assessment of disabilities, deliberation and guideline development, evaluation framework, the mandatory use of prescribed documentation, grievance redressal mechanisms, and the decisions taken pursuant thereto. For the sake of convenience the relevant extract from the above discussed guidelines is reproduced herein below:
"राष्ट्रीयआयुर्विज्ञान आयोग National Medical Commission No.NMC/UGMEB/PwBD/2025 Dated 18.07.2025 To Dr.B.Srinivas, Deputy Director General (Medical Education), Medical Counselling Committee, Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS). Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi.
Reference: NMC's D.O. No. NMC/UGMEB/PwBD/2025 dated 09.07.2025.
Subject: Interim Guidelines on assessment method for granting admission in MBBS Course for PwBD Candidates for A.Y. 2025-26.
Sir, This has reference to the previous communication of NMC vide D.O. No.NMC/UGMEB/PwBD/2025 dated 09.07.2025 regarding compliance with the directions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide Judgment dated 25.10.2024 in SLP (C) No. 21942 of 2024 titled as Om Rathod vs. Union of India & Ors and connected matters. Kindly find enclosed herewith the interim guidelines as approved by the Chairman, NMC for admission to PwBD in MBBS Course for Academic Year 2025-26.
(Dr. Raghav Langers).
Secretary Copy to
1. Additional Secretary, (Medical Education), MoHFW, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2. PPS to Chairman, NMC (Uploaded on 11/11/2025 at 03:44:14 PM) (Downloaded on 11/11/2025 at 09:16:27 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:43235] (11 of 19) [CW-12414/2025] INTERIM GUIDELINES ON ASSESSMENT METHOD FOR GRANTING ADMISSION IN MBBS COURSE TO PwBD CANDIDATES FOR AY 2025-26 PREAMBLE:
In pursuit of equitable and inclusive medical education, the National Medical Commission (NMC) remains steadfast in its commitment to ensuring fair access to medical courses for all eligible candidates, including Persons with Disabilities (PwD). In alignment with the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, this interim report outlines the foundational framework and preparatory measures for facilitating the admission of PwBD candidates in MBBS Course. This report serves as a step towards strengthening existing mechanisms, identifying challenges and proposing recommendations for creating an enabling environment that upholds the principles of dignity, non-discrimination, and equal opportunity. It focuses on key aspects such as assessment of disability, eligibility-criteria, reasonable accommodations, accessibility standards, and institutional readiness. The NMC acknowledges the valuable contribution of a diverse medical workforce and envisions a system where every aspiring student, irrespective of physical or cognitive ability, is empowered to pursue a career in medicine and serve society with competence and compassion.
1. Introduction In alignment with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, and subsequent notifications, particularly the directive issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (MoSJE) on 12.03.2024, which underscores the principles of inclusive education and reasonable accommodation, and the landmark judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 25.10.2024 in Om Rathod vs Union of India & Others (SLP (C) No. 21942 of 2024), a significant shift has been initiated in the national approach toward disability inclusion in higher education.
2. Functional Competency Approach These legal and policy developments collectively emphasize the prioritization of functional competency over rigid percentage-
based disability thresholds. In response, the National Medical Commission (NMC) has undertaken proactive measures to ease challenges faced by PwBD candidates, ensuring a fair and inclusive medical education environment. This includes facilitating reasonable accommodations, raising eligibility norms, and adopting evaluation criteria focused on individual capabilities.
3. Deliberations and Guideline Development Extensive, deliberations were held in various meetings of the NMC, engaging a committee of medical experts. A consensus emerged to develop a comprehensive guideline focused on functional ability and reasonable accommodation to enable the fair inclusion of PwBD candidates in the MBBS program, without subjecting them to undue hardship or exclusion. This initiative is aimed at reinforcing existing systems, identifying practical challenges, and formulating evidence-based recommendations to build an enabling environment grounded in the principles of dignity, non-discrimination, and equal opportunity. It will focus on critical areas including disability assessment, eligibility criteria, and provision of reasonable accommodations accessibility standards, and institutional preparedness
4. Interim Admission Approach for AY 2025-26 Defining essential competencies for each type of disability involves a very complex process which is multidimensional & (Uploaded on 11/11/2025 at 03:44:14 PM) (Downloaded on 11/11/2025 at 09:16:27 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:43235] (12 of 19) [CW-12414/2025] dynamic Assistive devices & medical technologies are also rapidly advancing & evolving. Striking a balance between inclusion and the imperatives of patient safely and clinical competence in medical education and practice is of paramount, importance. Pertinent to mention that Post Graduate medical courses shall require specialty specific deliberations, as the required competencies and skills may vary over a wider range and therefore additional consultations with medical experts/beneficiaries/ stakeholders are needed. In view of aforesaid facts, final guidelines after following all procedural aspects and further consultations, shall be notified & implemented from subsequent Academic Years. However, the admission process for PwBD candidates for AY 2025-26 must continue uninterrupted. Accordingly, the group of medical experts under the committee duly constituted by NMC under the chairmanship of Dr. Achal Gulari), have unanimously reached to a conclusion to adopt interim guidelines for admissions in AY 2025-26
5. Functional Assessment of Disabilities The previously mandated arithmetic threshold shall be no longer applicable. Instead, emphasis will be placed on assessing a candidate's functional ability to meet the academic and clinical demands of the MBBS course.
6. Mandatory Use of UDID Portal As per Gazette Notification 5.0. 1736(E) dated 05.05.1021, issued by the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (DEPwD), all disability certificates and UDID cards must be issued via the UDID online portal, effective June 1, 2021.
Accordingly, the UDID card has been established as a mandatory document for persons with disabilities. In this context, it may be regarded as an essential and authoritative proof for evaluating the eligibility of meritorious NEET UG candidates under the disability category.
7. Evaluation Framework Based on MaSJE Guidelines Further in view of the paramount importance of patient safety and clinical competence the assessment of candidates with disabilities may be conducted in accordance with the recently notified guidelines dated 12.03.2024 issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (MoSJE). These guidelines provide a structured and uniform framework to ensure that the evaluation of disability as both comprehensive and consistent with the responsibilities inherent to medical practice.
8. Institutional Responsibilities under the RPWD Act The medical colleges as per the recommendations prescribed under RPwD Act, 2016, shall make maximum efforts in accommodating and facilitating the candidates with disabilities:
. Non-Discrimination in Admission and Education (Section
16):
Institutions must ensure that no student with a disability is denied admission on the grounds of disability and must provide an inclusive education system at all levels. . Infrastructure Accessibility (Section 45): Institutions must ensure barrier-free access to buildings, classrooms, libraries. laboratories, hostels, and other facilities as per the standards notified by the Government of India. . Sensitization and Capacity Building:
Colleges are encouraged to conduct awareness and sensitization programs for faculty, staff, and students to promote an inclusive environment and reduce attitudinal barriers. . Nodal Officer for Disability Affairs:
(Uploaded on 11/11/2025 at 03:44:14 PM) (Downloaded on 11/11/2025 at 09:16:27 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:43235] (13 of 19) [CW-12414/2025] Institutions are advised to appoint a dedicated Nodal Officer or establish a Disability Cell to address the concerns and support needs of students with disabilities.
. Grievance Redressal Mechanism:
An accessible and responsive grievance redressal system must be in place to address complaints related to discrimination or lack of accommodation.
9. Decision Taken The expert panel unanimously agreed on the following for MBBS admissions under the PwBD category for AY-2025-26:
PwBD candidates must submit A valid UDID card issued by a designated medical authority under MoSJE;
Self-Certified affidavits in the format provided under Schedule -
1.
The candidate will have to approach the designated medical board for verification of their self-certified affidavit.
Designated Medical Boards (16 designated medical boards) are required to undertake following duties:
The competencies mentioned in the appendix under Schedule-1 are basic & mandatory. The candidates, to the satisfaction of the designated medical board, may demonstrate the competencies that have been declared by him/her. If the board finds the declared competencies unsubstantiated based on the candidate's performance, it must issue a reasoned decision declaring him/her ineligible to pursue medical course.
If the candidate while self-declaring the essential competencies mentions one or more competencies in negative or is not able to demonstrate one or more of the listed essential competencies, the board shall see if he/she is able to compensate such deficits, by other alternative functionalities; and may take a holistic view regarding his capability to pursue MBBS course.
The designated medical boards may utilize standardized tests and tools to evaluate the abilities of the candidates, as per their declaration, instead of focusing on the disabilities.
All decisions of the designated medical board(s) shall be in the form speaking orders.
Admissions will be processed by the counseling authority, based on NEET 2025 scores, institutional preferences, and verification of required documents by the concerned designated medical board(s). Medical colleges will provide accommodations accordingly."
20. Upon careful scrutiny of the record, it is evident that the NMC Guidelines dated 18.07.2025, read with the Public Notice dated 21.07.2025, were framed after due consideration of the provisions of the Act of 2016 and the directives of the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. The said guidelines were intended to ensure a uniform and standardized mechanism for assessment of disability for the purposes of medical admissions, (Uploaded on 11/11/2025 at 03:44:14 PM) (Downloaded on 11/11/2025 at 09:16:27 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:43235] (14 of 19) [CW-12414/2025] while maintaining the delicate balance between inclusion and patient safety.
21. Further, upon a perusal of the interim guidelines issued by the respondent-NMC, it is evident that certain safety parameters and procedural safeguards are required to be observed while granting admission to the MBBS course. The guidelines mandate an equitable and inclusive approach, formulated after extensive deliberations and holistic evaluation of the academic framework, institutional preparedness, existing systems, practical challenges, and the overarching principle of reasonable accommodation. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the interim guidelines specifically prescribe the methodology for functional assessment of disabilities for the assessment year 2025-26. It can also be noted that the guidelines, in essence, seek to strike a judicious balance between the inclusion of differently-abled students and the paramount considerations of patient safety, clinical competence, and academic integrity in medical education.
The said guidelines further make it unambiguous that the mathematical percentage of disability cannot be the sole criterion for determining eligibility; rather, the functional capacity of the candidate to perform essential clinical and academic tasks must be the determining factor.
22. Furthermore, paragraph 7 of the said guidelines reiterates that while the principles of inclusion and equal opportunity are to be liberally construed; the indispensable requirements of patient safety, clinical competence, and the professional responsibility inherent in the practice of medicine (Uploaded on 11/11/2025 at 03:44:14 PM) (Downloaded on 11/11/2025 at 09:16:27 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:43235] (15 of 19) [CW-12414/2025] must remain paramount. The authorities are therefore required to adopt a compassionate yet pragmatic approach, duly considering the valid UDID card, affidavit prescribed under Schedule-1, and other relevant materials, and to ensure that a reasoned and speaking order is passed in each case of assessment.
23. Subsequently, upon a perusal of the Appendices A, B, and C appended to the guidelines, which prescribe the mandatory declarations and affidavits required from candidates under the PWD category, the contentions of the petitioners vis-à-vis arbitrariness on the part of respondents are further nullified. For the sake of handiness the relevant extract from the above discussed appendices is reproduced herein below:
"
Competency Description
Area
C. Dominant . I can write and hold instruments
Hand using my dominant or aided hand.
Functionality
2. I hereby affirm that I possess the essential competencies and am capable of successfully undertaking the MBBS course. (Appendix A)
6. I hereby affirm that I possess the essential competencies and am capable of successfully undertaking the MBBS course. (Appendix C).
.The candidate will have to approach the designated Medical Board for verification of their self-certified affidavits. Certification:
We, the undersigned members of the Medical Board, certify that the self certified affidavit submitted by the candidate has been assessed on defined functional competencies and found to be eligible for pursuing the MBBS course. (Source Annexure-6)"
24. It can also be deduced that pursuant to the directions issued by the Court and in the light of the judgment encapsulated in Om Rathod (supra), a Medical Board was duly constituted, which rendered its opinion vide Annexure-AA/2. The said Board, (Uploaded on 11/11/2025 at 03:44:14 PM) (Downloaded on 11/11/2025 at 09:16:27 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:43235] (16 of 19) [CW-12414/2025] comprising five medical experts, including one doctor with a physical disability, conducted a detailed functional assessment of the petitioners at the Skill Development and Simulation Centre attached to the Trauma Centre; and only after conducting a thorough evaluation of the petitioners' functional abilities vis-à-vis patient safety and clinical demands, the Board concluded that the petitioners were not functionally eligible for pursuing the MBBS course. The assessment undertaken was comprehensive, covering essential clinical competencies such as the ability to handle blood pressure instruments, adherence to hygiene protocols (including the wearing of gloves), preparation and administration of injections, and other mandatory skills fundamental to clinical practice. It is pertinent to note that, out of several candidates assessed under the physically handicapped category, only seven candidates, including the present petitioners were found functionally ineligible and were, therefore, not recommended for admission.
PARTING NOTE AND CONCLUSION:
25. In precise, it can be noted that no mala fides, bias, or lack of expertise can be attributed to the Medical Board. Moreover, the constitution of the Board and the procedure adopted by it reflect a balanced and judicious approach consistent with the NMC Interim Guidelines. A perusal of the record noticeably indicates that the Board passed a speaking and reasoned order, supported by detailed clinical analysis, and duly considered all documents submitted by the petitioners. The evaluation undertaken was aligned with the paramount considerations of patient safety and (Uploaded on 11/11/2025 at 03:44:14 PM) (Downloaded on 11/11/2025 at 09:16:27 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:43235] (17 of 19) [CW-12414/2025] clinical competence as mandated by the guidelines. Thence, this Court finds no infirmity, irregularity, or procedural impropriety in the process adopted by the respondents. On the contrary, the affidavits and certificates placed on record unequivocally reflect that the petitioners' selection was expressly subject to functional evaluation by the duly constituted Medical Board.
26. Moreso, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, are on a distinguishable stance, and in view of the observations noted herein above, this Court is of a view that the present petitions are bereft of any merits for the following reasons:
26.1 That the ratio encapsulated in Om Rathod (supra) was, in fact, one of the foundational bases for the issuance of the NMC Guidelines dated 18.07.2025, in the dispute at hand.
26.2 That the evaluation in the present case was conducted by a competent Medical Board constituted in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which included a member with physical disability, and the rejection orders were passed after due consideration of clinical challenges and patient safety requirements.
26.3 That the earlier judgments relied upon by the petitioners are distinguishable on facts, as in those cases the rejections were either unsupported by speaking orders or not rendered in compliance with the NMC Guidelines, 2025.
26.4 That the record demonstrates that the Medical Board duly examined the UDID certificates, affidavits, and other relevant materials, and that only those candidates whose disabilities were (Uploaded on 11/11/2025 at 03:44:14 PM) (Downloaded on 11/11/2025 at 09:16:27 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:43235] (18 of 19) [CW-12414/2025] found to substantially impede essential clinical functions were declared ineligible. The evaluation process thus reflects due observance of the principle of reasonable accommodation and adherence to the statutory framework and prescribed guidelines.
27. It is a settled proposition of law that in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not ordinarily interfere with the decisions of expert bodies unless such decisions are shown to be perverse, arbitrary, or actuated by mala fides. Once the constitution of the Medical Board is found to be competent and its conclusions are based on due consideration of relevant material, judicial review is limited and does not extend to substituting the Court's opinion for that of the expert authority.
28. Before parting with this judgment, this Court deems it appropriate to observe that while the present petitions do not merit interference on facts or in law, the issue raised touches upon an area of considerable social and constitutional importance. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 embodies the transformative vision of inclusion, dignity, and equality for persons with disabilities. The National Medical Commission, as the regulatory authority, must therefore continue to ensure that the process of medical evaluation and determination of functional eligibility remains transparent, objective, and sensitive to the spirit of the legislation. It is further observed that persons with benchmark disabilities who aspire to pursue professional education, particularly in the field of medicine, ought to be afforded due respect and consideration in line with the principle of (Uploaded on 11/11/2025 at 03:44:14 PM) (Downloaded on 11/11/2025 at 09:16:27 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:43235] (19 of 19) [CW-12414/2025] reasonable accommodation, while simultaneously upholding the imperatives of patient safety and professional competence.
Nevertheless, in the matters at hand respondents have duly considered the candidature of candidates who were professionally competent to conduct the medical procedures; however the petitioners herein after being duly examined, have been ousted for cogent reasons vis-a-vis their performance. The balance between compassion and competence must, therefore, be maintained through periodic review and refinement of the assessment framework by the competent authorities. This Court is confident that the NMC and other concerned institutions shall remain mindful of these guiding principles while discharging their statutory obligations in future admission cycles.
29. In view of the foregoing discussion and findings, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners have failed to establish any illegality, arbitrariness, or procedural irregularity in the process adopted by the respondents or in the decision rendered by the Medical Board. The impugned orders thus call for no interference.
30. Accordingly, the present writ petitions being bereft of any merits stand dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
(SAMEER JAIN),J JKP/s-304-305 (Uploaded on 11/11/2025 at 03:44:14 PM) (Downloaded on 11/11/2025 at 09:16:27 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)