NEET Medical Board Cannot Reassess Disability Percentage In Candidates With Benchmark Disabilities: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court has held that the percentage of disability of a candidate possessing a valid Unique Disability ID (UDID) card cannot be reassessed by a Medical Assessment Board or Appellate Authority for determining eligibility for reservation under the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) category in NEET-UG admissions.
Justice Amrita Sinha held that the quantum of disability, once assessed and certified by the competent authority under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and reflected in the UDID card, has to be treated as final. The Medical Assessment Board, the Court clarified, is required to assess the candidate's functional capability to pursue the MBBS course and not reassess the percentage of disability.
The Court was dealing with a petition filed by Rashid Aktar Hussain, who had participated in NEET-UG 2026 under the PwBD category and secured an All India rank of 1936 in that category.
The petitioner relied on a UDID issued on September 18, 2025, which recorded his disability at 60 percent. His disability was described as locomotor disability in the right upper limb arising from congenital shortening of the right arm, with the certificate being valid until January 19, 2027.
Under the guidelines applicable to assessment of persons with benchmark disabilities for admission to the MBBS course, candidates are required to produce a disability certificate issued by the Medical Assessment Board and demonstrate functional competency to pursue the course.
The petitioner appeared before the Medical Assessment Board, which reassessed his disability and reduced it by 29 percent on August 7, 2026. He subsequently appealed against the assessment. The Appellate Authority, on August 13, 2026, assessed his disability at 32 percent, thereby making him ineligible for reservation meant for candidates with benchmark disabilities.
The Medical Assessment Board and the Appellate Authority, however, found the petitioner functionally competent. They recorded that he did not require assistive or other support, was capable of successfully completing the MBBS course and acquiring the prescribed competencies, and did not pose any risk to patient safety.
The petitioner challenged the reassessment, arguing that the Medical Assessment Board was only required to evaluate his functional capability and did not have authority to reassess the quantum of disability already certified by the competent authority.
The petitioner relied on the National Medical Commission guidelines as well as the Supreme Court's judgment in Om Rathod v. Director General of Health Services, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3130. Reliance was also placed on a coordinate Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Mitadru Sau v. State of West Bengal & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 10317.
The respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner was required to appear before the Appellate Authority for assessment of his functionality for admission and completion of the MBBS course, and that the Assessment Board was required to verify the nature and extent of the disability in accordance with the applicable guidelines.
Rejecting this approach, the High Court noted that the petitioner's disability had already been ascertained and certified by the competent authority under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
Referring to Section 2(r) of the Act, the Court noted that a "person with benchmark disability" means a person with not less than 40 percent of a specified disability, as certified by the certifying authority.
The Court observed: "Once the quantum of disability is assessed and UDID card issued reflecting such quantum, there is hardly any scope to reassess the same by any other authority not prescribed by law."
Justice Sinha further held that the Medical Assessment Board's fresh determination of the percentage of disability for deciding PwBD reservation was contrary to the statutory scheme.
"The provision of the Act will always prevail over any guidelines issued by the authority," the Court said.
The Court also rejected the possibility of applying two different standards for determining whether a candidate has a benchmark disability.
"It cannot be that a person will fall under PwBD category under the Act and will not fall under the said category in terms of the Guidelines. There cannot be two separate criteria to identify benchmark disability of a person," the Court observed.
The Court reiterated that the quantum of disability has to be assessed by the authority prescribed under the 2016 Act which issues the disability certificate and UDID, while the Medical Assessment Board and Appellate Authority are required to assess the functionality of the candidate.
In the present case, the Medical Assessment Board had already found the petitioner to be functionally competent, including in respect of reasonable accommodation, his ability to complete the MBBS course and patient safety.
"In view of the above, the Court is of the considered opinion that the conclusion of the Medical Assessment Board affirmed by the Appellate Authority that the petitioner is ineligible for PwBD reservation cannot be sustained in the eye of law," the Court held.
The Court accordingly set aside the conclusion that the petitioner was ineligible for PwBD reservation and directed that the disability percentage recorded by the competent authority and reflected in his UDID card be treated as final.
The Court directed IPGME&R, Kolkata to issue a fresh eligibility certificate to the petitioner, relying on the disability percentage recorded in his UDID, by September 23, 2026.
The petitioner was consequently permitted to participate in the next round of NEET-UG counselling on the basis of the fresh eligibility certificate.
Case: Rashid Aktar Hussain v. Union of India & Ors.
Case No.: WPA 26386 of 2026