Madras High Court Asks Authorities To Allow PwD Candidate To Participate In NEET PG 2025-26 Counselling Based On Rank Secured In 2024 Exam
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 permit a physically disabled candidate to attend the counselling for NEET PG 2025-26 based on the rank secured by him in NEET PG 2024. Justice C Kumarappan relied on...
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 permit a physically disabled candidate to attend the counselling for NEET PG 2025-26 based on the rank secured by him in NEET PG 2024.
Justice C Kumarappan relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kabir Paharia vs National Medical Commission and others, in which the court had observed 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.
In the above judgment, the Supreme Court had also 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. The Supreme Court had held that since the fault was on the authorities, the candidate should not be made to undergo the exam once again and must be allotted seat in the forthcoming session. Based on the observations of the Supreme Court, the court was inclined to pass a similar order in the present case.
“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,” the court said.
The court was hearing a writ petition filed by Tarigonda Surya Maheedhar. Maheedhar had completed his MBBS degree from China in 2019 and had cleared the screening test for Foreign Medical Graduate Examination in 2020. He met with an accident in 2021 and had to undergo a left above-elbow amputation, which left him with a one-arm disability.
Maheedhar had appeared for the NEET PG entrance in 2024 and 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. Though his disability was assessed at 90%, the authorities declared him functionally unfit to pursue the postgraduate medical course.
Challenging this decision, he argued that the authorities failed to take a pragmatic approach because of which his valuable 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.
The college, on the other hand, submitted that they were bound by the NMC guidelines, which do not provide for allotment of seats based on the candidate's previous year NEET PG performance. Contending that the report was prepared strictly in accordance with the NMC guidelines, the college sought to dismiss the plea.
The court noted that, as per an interim order, the court had directed Maheedhar to appear before JIPMER for re-assessment of his functional disability. Based on JIPMER's report, he would not have much difficulty in pursuing a Postgraduate Degree or 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.
Maheedhar submitted that since he could not continue in MD Microbiology, for which he had qualified, he would be able to pursue the eight courses as mentioned in the report of JIPMER.
Considering the report and the decision of the Supreme Court, the court directed the authorities to allow Maheedhar to participate in the upcoming counselling for admission to any of the above 8 PG courses.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Sriram Venkatavardan
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. R. Rajesh Vivekananthan, Deputy Solicitor General of India, Ms.Shubharanjani Ananth, Standing Counsel NMC, Mr. K. Tippu Sultan, Government Advocate, Mr. M. T. Arunan for JIPMER
Case Title: Tarigonda Surya Maheedhar v. The Union of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 301
Case No: WP 5209 of 2025