Andhra Pradesh High Court Allows Plea Of MBBS Student Suffering From Cerebral Palsy Seeking Compensatory Time During Exams

“The success of the Writ Petitioner in the first year MBBS examinations after availing the compensatory time of 30 minutes made it evident that the extra 30 minutes was the one that made all the differences for the Writ Petitioner to succeed in the first year MBBS examinations. Although, it was stated by the learned Single Judge that it was not a binding precedent, the case of the Writ Petitioner is required to be assessed and evaluated based on the success in the first year MBBS examinations after availing the extra time. Having regard to the interpretation given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in respect of the socially beneficial laws governing the differently abled persons, this Court does not find any reason to reject the request made by the Writ Petitioner inasmuch as the Writ Petitioner was able to utilise the extra time that was given by this Court on the earlier occasion and pass the 1st year MBBS Examinations.”

Justice Prasad was of the view that the reasonable approximations should be made to give benefit to an individual suffering with any kind of benchmark disability rather than looking for any precision with regard to the degree of disability of an individual inasmuch as assessment to arrive at such precision goes counter to the provisions of the RPwD Act.

Background

The petitioner, a second year MBBS student at Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam–affiliated to Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences–is suffering from cerebral palsy. A 'Certificate for Person with Disability' was also issued to the petitioner to the effect that the she suffered from physical (Locomotor/Orthopaedic) disability affecting the Bilateral Lower Limbs, which severely affects the ability to complete written examinations within stipulated duration and such a disability came within the ambit of 'Benchmark Disability' under Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act.

As such, the petitioner was eligible for special accommodation in examinations and was granted four, instead of three, hours to complete the same. However, she was not able to utilise the extra time of one additional hour granted to her and subsequently found it difficult to sail through the first year of MBBS examinations.

When the petitioner approached the High Court in 2023, she was granted an additional 30 minutes in addition to the one extra hour that was already granted. This helped the petitioner clear the first year.

However, during the second year, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences (Respondent 2) declined to extend a similar benefit for the second year and issued a Memo stating that the high court order granting an additional 30 minutes in addition to the initial extra one hour was limited to the first year MBBS examinations only. The memo cited that the extra 30 minutes of compensatory time granted to the petitioner would not form a precedent. Against this the petitioner approached the high court again. 

The plea sought setting aside of the memo declaring it as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India besides being in violation of the provisions enshrined in the RPwD Act and the Supreme Court's judgment in Vikash Kumar Vs. Union Public Service Commission and Ors. Additionally, it prayed for the grant of an additional 30 minutes for the second-year examinations and all upcoming examinations till the completion of the course.

The petitioner argued that the RPwD Act, 2016, is a beneficial social legislation which aims at enabling the disabled persons to come into the mainstream, Section 2(y) of which prescribes for “reasonable accommodation” which the petitioner was entitled to. “Reasonable accommodation” under the said provision entails necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments, without imposing a disproportionate or undue burden in a particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise of rights equally with others.

The respondent university defended the memo by stating that the applicability of the high court's earlier order was restricted to only the first year of examination and was not applicable to the forthcoming examinations. Additionally, it was argued that based on the description of the disability as mentioned in the 'Certificate for Person with Disability', it could not be said that the petitioner suffered from any Locomotor Disability in the upper part of the body and that the disability was of the nature of physical disability (Locomotor/Orthopedic), in relation to her Bilateral Lower Limb and Impaired Reach. It was argued that the percentage of disability was 60% which meant that she could perform work by manipulating fingers, lifting, bending, sitting and standing.

Findings

The Court rejected the University's argument that the petitioner did not suffer from any disability insofar as the upper body is concerned. The Medical Assessment was done by three doctors belonging to the Departments of Orthopedics, Department of Ophthalmology and Department of Dermatology and the Court held that such a Medical Board constituted for examining a person suffering from 'Cerebral Palsy' was defective inasmuch as atleast one Member should have been from the Department of Neurology. Doctors from the Departments of Ophthalmology and Dermatology were held to be not competent to evaluate the nature of disability of a person affected by 'Cerebral Palsy'.

In this regard, the Court further stated,

“The 'birth injury' leading to 'Cerebral Palsy', to the 'elementary knowledge' of this Court, would occur on account of the Neurological system being affected. Although this Court, does not have the expertise to state as to how the Writ Petitioner is neurologically affected, suffice it to state that the Medical Board constituted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh to examine a person with disability of 'Cerebral Palsy' is certainly irregular and improper which goes to the very root of the matter and therefore is defective. In any case, this Court, having analysed various Judgments rendered by the Honble Apex Court in the aforesaid Paragraphs, is of the view that the reasonable approximations should be made so as to give benefit to an individual suffering with any kind of benchmark disability rather than looking for any precision with regard to the degree of disability of an individual inasmuch as assessment to arrive at such precision goes counter to the provisions of the RPwD Act, 2016.”

Allowing the writ petition, the Court directed the respondents to grant the petitioner compensatory time of 30 minutes in addition to one hour for every three hours for the second year MBBS examinations as well as the other MBBS examinations until the she completes her course.

Case Details:

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 5316 OF 2025

Case Title: JAMMULA NANDASAI MITHRA v. THE STATE OF AP

Date: 04.04.2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order