Case
The petitioner – a 20-year old student from Other Backward Class with a locomotor benchmark disability coupled with speech disability since birth, took NEET-UG on May 5. When results were declared on August 26, the petitioner secured 205 marks out of 720 maximum marks, which was above the cut-off marks of 143-127 for the OBC-PwD category. When the petitioner sought his disability certificate, his locomotor disability was quantified at 50%, which is within the prescribed range of 40-80% making him eligible for reservation under ‘physical disability quota’ for medical education.
The petitioner’s plea is that in his disability certificate, he however declared ineligible to pursue medical education on account of his quantified disability and without offering any reasons.
"It is most humbly submitted that both the Disability Certification Board as well as the High Court have completely failed to apply the principles of "reasonable accommodation" in the present case. They have made absolutely no effort to explore if any necessary modification or adjustments could be made to see if the petitioner would be able to pursue his medical education with the help of such modification or adjustments."
-SLP
Punjab and Haryna HC Consideration
The court noted that a similar issue had already been decided in a previous case (CWP-19669- 2024, Yashvee Aggarwal vs. Union of India and others) on August 23, 2024. In that case, the court denied the relief sought because it believed that the opinion of disability experts should not be overridden by the court’s opinion.
Yashvee Aggarwal Case
A petitioner with congenital deficiency of toes in both hands and feet was deemed ineligible for medical admission by a Medical Board of three doctors. They passed the decision on the basis that-
” Congenial Deficiency of Toes Bilateral hand and foot. Functional competency with the aid of Assistive devices in case of Locomotor/Visual/Hearing r/Visual/Hearing impairment, if any : As both hands intact with sensations sufficient strength and range of motion are essential to be considered eligible for medical course.”
Supreme Court’s Record of Proceedings
25 Nov 2024-Court instructed the Director of All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi to constitute a Committee to examine as to whether the disability suffered by the petitioner
would come in the way of his pursuing medical studies. We request the Director, AIIMS, New Delhi to co-opt Professor Dr. Satendra Singh as a member of the Committee.
27 Nov 2024- The petitioner was directed to remain personally present before the Director, AIIMS, New Delhi
2 Dec 2024- Supreme Court directed to consider the petitioner under OBC-PwD category in the meantime.
Supreme Court Raps Officials for Absence During Hearings
"Though normally we do not direct the presence of the officers of the Government to remain present in the Court, in view of the casual approach of Respondent No.2, we are compelled to direct the personal presence of the Director General, Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi in this Court on 12.12.2024 at 10.30 Α.Μ."
Respondents
Union, Office of Medical Counselling Committee, National Testing Agency, National Medical Commission, Chandigarh Administration and Government Medical College and Hospital.
Final Order-
“The appellant is directed to be admitted in the Government Medical College, Sirohi, Rajasthan, against a seat reserved for persons with disability (OBC). We further direct that if the seat is not available, in the facts and circumstances of the case, a supernumerary seat be created so that the appellant can be accommodated on the said seat."
-SC
The Medical Bulletin
Leave a Reply