Madras HC allows PwD doctor to participate in NEET PG 2025 counselling using 2024 rank
Madras High Court
Chennai: Granting relief to a PwD candidate, the Madras High Court recently directed the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, the office of Medical Counselling Committee, the National Medical Commission, and the Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital to allow him to attend the counselling for National Eligibility-Entrance Test Postgraduate (NEET-PG) 2025-2026 based on the rank secured by him in NEET PG 2024 exam.
Last year, despite clearing the NEET PG 2024 exam, the concerned candidate was deemed unfit to pursue his preferred speciality. However, after the Court's intervention, the petitioner's disability was reassessed at JIPMER, and he was considered capable of undertaking psychiatry and other allied medical courses.
The HC bench comprising Justice C Kumarappan relied on the Supreme Court order in the case of Kabir Paharia vs National Medical Commission and others, in which the Court had observed that the constitutional mandate of substantive equality demands that a person with disabilities and PwBD be afforded reasonable accommodations rather than subjected to exclusionary practices based on unfounded presumptions about their capabilities.
In this order, the Apex Court bench had held that if a candidate is denied admission based on a wrong assessment, it would be against their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In such cases, the Apex Court had opined, that since the authorities were at fault, the candidate should not be made to undergo the exam once again and must be allotted a seat in the nect academic session.
Relying on the Supreme Court order, the HC bench noted that "Even in the case on hand, JIPMER has assessed that the petitioner is eligible to pursue a Postgraduate medical course, however, the specific course opted by him could not be pursued as he could not be substantially productive on account of his physical disability. However, eight other courses namely (i) Psychiatry (ii) Radiation Oncology, Radiotherapy, Palliative Medicine and Radiation Medicine (iii) Preventive and Social Medicine (Community Medicine) (iv) Hospital Administration (v) Health Administration (vi) Public Health (vii) Pharmacology (viii) Biochemistry, the petitioner could able to pursue and be substantially productive in practicing."
"Therefore, in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, and relying upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kabir Paharia case cited supra, this Court would like to give a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the upcoming NEET PG 2025-2026 counselling, for the admission in the above eight postgraduate courses, based upon the NEET rank secured by the petitioner in NEET PG 2024... With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of," the top court bench observed.
The case concerned a doctor who completed his MBBS degree from China in 2019 and had cleared the screening test for the Foreign Medical Graduates Examination in 2020. However, after meeting with an accident in 2021, he had to undergo a left above-elbow amputation, which left him with a one-arm disability.
After appearing in the NEET PG 2024 exam, the petitioner obtained an All India Rank 50084. Since he was suffering from a benchmark disability, he applied for the benefit of 5 % reservation under Section 32(1) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016. His disability was assessed at 90% and the authorities declared him functionally unfit to pursue the postgraduate medical course.
Challenging this, the petitioner approached the High Court and argued that the authorities failed to take a pragmatic approach, due to which his right became redundant. He submitted that the authorities should have assessed his functional disability with due care and should have allotted a course in which a person with disability could be substantially productive in practice.
On the other hand, the counsel for the Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital submitted that they are bound by the NMC guidelines, and the assessment report was prepared strictly in accordance with the NMC guidelines. Meanwhile, the counsel for NMC, by relying on an e-mail communication submitted that the regulations do not provide for allotment of seats on the basis of a candidate’s previous year NEET - PG performance.
While considering the matter, the HC bench observed that based on an interim order, the Court had directed the petitioner to appear before JIPMER for re-assessment of his functional disability. Based on JIPMER's report, the petitioner would not have much difficulty in pursuing a Postgraduate Degree of Diploma courses in (i) Psychiatry, (ii) Radiation oncology, radiotherapy, palliative medicine and radiation medicine, (iii) preventive and social medicine, (iv) hospital administration, (v) health administration, (vi) public health, (vii) pharmacology, and (viii) biochemistry.
The petitioner submitted that since he could not continue in MD Microbiology, for which he had qualified, he would be able to pursue the right courses as mentioned in the report of JIPMER. Accordingly, considering the report and the decision of the Supreme Court, the Court directed the authorities to allow the petitioner to participate in the upcoming counselling for admission to any of these 8 PG medical courses.
Before arriving at this conclusion, the HC bench relied on the Supreme Court order in the case of Kabir Paharia vs National Medical Commission and others and noted, "In the above Judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, if the wrong assessment had denied the petitioner's admission then same is against the right guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that the constitutional mandate of substantive equality demands that person with disabilities and PwBD be afforded reasonable accommodations rather than subjected to exclusionary practices based on unfounded presumptions about their capabilities. After holding so, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed the respondents to allot seat in the forthcoming academic session. It was further held that the candidates need not required to undergo NEET Exam once again. While looking at the above judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ultimately held that though the petitioner therein has scored eligible marks in 2024-2025 NEET, since because there is a fault on the part of the respondents therein he was not able to pursue his medical course, therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed the respondents to allot medical seat in the forthcoming academic session with out undertaking NEET once again."
To view the order, click on the link below:
Also Read: NMC's 'both hands intact' rule for MBBS, reeks of ableism: Supreme Court
