Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court directed the petitioner, who is seeking admission to a medical course under the Persons with Disabilities (PwD) category, to undergo a fresh medical test at AIIMS, Delhi. This decision followed the petitioner’s contention that his disability percentage would be below the permissible limit of 80% if assessed with assistive devices. The Court appreciated the suggestion from the respondent and set a date for the fresh examination, ensuring fairness in the evaluation process.
Facts:
The petitioner, who appeared for the NEET-UG 2024 and secured 601 marks with an All-India PwD rank of 84, applied for admission in a medical course under the PwD category. He suffers from “limb girdle muscular dystrophy,” and a medical certificate issued by AIIMS, Nagpur assessed his disability as 88%, which is above the permissible threshold for PwD candidates seeking admission in medical courses. As a result, the petitioner was declared ineligible for admission by the concerned authorities. Consequently, the petitioner challenged this assessment before the Bombay High Court, which dismissed his plea.
Dissatisfied with the High Court’s ruling, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court, arguing that his disability percentage would be below 80% if evaluated with the use of assistive devices.
Issues:
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner’s disability percentage should be re-assessed with assistive devices, as he argued that his actual disability would be below the permissible limit for admission in the PwD category.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The petitioner’s counsel argued that although the initial certificate indicated a disability percentage of 88%, this percentage was determined without considering assistive devices. The counsel submitted that if assistive aids were used, the disability percentage would be below 80%, making the petitioner eligible for admission under the PwD category.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The respondent, represented by the Additional Solicitor General, did not object to a re-evaluation and suggested that the petitioner undergo a fresh medical test with assistive devices at AIIMS, Delhi. This proposal was made to ensure that a fair and comprehensive assessment is conducted, considering the petitioner’s contention.
Analysis of the Law:
The case revolves around the interpretation of regulations governing the admission of candidates with disabilities under the PwD category for medical courses. As per the applicable guidelines, a candidate’s disability should not exceed 80% to be eligible under this category. The petitioner’s contention highlighted the importance of using assistive aids in determining the functional capabilities of candidates with disabilities, which can significantly impact their eligibility status.
Precedent Analysis:
Although no specific precedents were cited in this judgment, the principles of fairness, equal opportunity, and reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities are upheld in previous rulings of the Supreme Court. The Court’s direction for a fresh evaluation aligns with the broader jurisprudence on ensuring equitable opportunities for persons with disabilities.
Court’s Reasoning:
The Supreme Court noted that the suggestion by the respondent’s counsel to conduct a fresh medical examination with assistive aids was fair and reasonable. The Court emphasized that any determination of disability should take into account the use of assistive devices, as this could impact the petitioner’s functional assessment and eligibility for admission under the PwD category.
Conclusion:
The Court directed the petitioner to appear before the Medical Board at AIIMS, Delhi, on 5 October 2024, for a fresh medical examination using assistive devices. The Court also instructed the Medical Board to keep in mind the relevant circular issued by the Directorate General of Health Services while conducting the test. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on 14 October 2024, when the fresh medical report will be reviewed.
Implications:
This decision highlights the importance of accurate disability assessment and the need for ensuring that all relevant factors, including the use of assistive devices, are considered in such evaluations. It sets a precedent for similar cases, emphasizing that disability percentages must reflect the functional abilities of the candidate with appropriate aids. The case also underscores the Court’s commitment to ensuring fairness and reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities in the context of educational admissions.
