Orissa High Court Quashes Medical Board's Report Excluding NEET-UG Candidate With Thalassemia From Disability Quota
Medical Board's opinion that Thalassemia does not impact functional ability can't discard candidate's disability claim, the Court said.
The Orissa High Court granted relied to a NEET-UG candidate with “β Thalassemia Trait” who was disqualified from availing the disability quota after a Medical Board assessed her to be functionally not disabled and concluded that she does not meet the criteria for certificate of disability. [2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 110]
Shedding light on the scheme of the Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Chittaranjan Dash held–
“The opinion expressed by the Medical Assessment Board was focused on the locomotor disability as the Thalassemia does not impact the functional ability of a person, which, in our opinion, cannot be a ground to discard the claim of the petitioner that he comes under the category of the “specified disability”. The moment the statute has included a particular disease as a disability, the assessment by the Medical Assessment Board should be restricted on the same, and it cannot transgress such boundaries and include the other category of the disability as a benchmark disability.”
The petitioner appeared in NEET-UG, 2026 specifying herself as a person with disability, supported by a disability certificate issued by competent authority which certified that she suffers from “β Thalassemia Trait” which measures more than 40%. However, she was referred to the assessment of a Medical Board which rejected her claim of disability on the premise that she does not suffer from any “functional disability”.
The petitioner earlier filed a writ petition challenging such assessment. The Court had then permitted the petitioner to make a representation raising the grievance to the Chairman, Odisha Joint Entrance Examination, 2026 by 11 AM of August 21, 2026. Nevertheless, the appellate authority issued the impugned notice holding the petitioner ineligible for reservation under the 2016 Act. Thus, this writ petition was filed.
While taking up the case on September 08, 2026, the Court had asked the counsel appearing for the Director, Directorate of Medical Education & Training (DMET) to produce the relevant documents which led to the final opinion of the appellate authority. Such document was produced before the Court from which it was clear that the Board rejected the petitioner's claim of disability on the ground that she does not suffer any functional or locomotor disability as a result of Thalassemia. Therefore, it had opined that the said “β Thalassemia Trait” does not result in disability to extend any benefit to the petitioner under the 2016 Act.
To adjudicate the dispute, the Court referred to Section 2(r) of the Act which defines “person with benchmark disability” as a person with not less than forty per cent of a specified disability where specified disability has not been defined in measurable terms and includes a person with disability where specified disability has been defined in measurable terms, as certified by the certifying authority. It examined the aforesaid definition in the light of the definition assigned to “specified disability” under Section 2(zc).
“The conjoint reading of both the definitions engrafted into the said Act leaves no ambiguity in our mind that a person, who is suffering from a specified disability of not less than 40%, comes within the bracket of the person with the benchmark disability… The said Act has defined both the “person with benchmark disability” and the “specified disability”, and therefore, the word “specified disability” appearing under the definition of a benchmark disability, it should be given the same meaning as defined in the said Act.”
The Bench found fault with the assessment of the Medical Board as it gave emphasis to locomotor disability and thus, excluded the petitioner from the benefit since Thalassemia does not necessarily affect functional ability of a person. It, hence, held–
“The moment the Act has categorised several categories of the disability, the authorities cannot bank upon one disability over the other as each disability stands on its own independent footing, and cannot be. subsumed into the other. The “Physical disability” is given as a separate category in the said schedule together with other categories of disability, namely, the “Intellectual disability”, “Mental behaviour”, “Neurological disability” and the “Blood disorder”.”
Resultantly, the Court set aside the medical assessment report and asked the authority/DMET to constitute a fresh Medical Assessment Board, which shall examine the petitioner to assess the percentage of her disability in order to ascertain if she can be brought within the ambit of the eligibility criterion.
Case Title: Harapriya Das v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Case No: W.P.(C) No. 28286 of 2026
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Pabitra Kumar Dutta, Advocate
Counsel for the Opposite Parties: Mr. R.C. Mohanty, Advocate for DMET, Mr. Amitav Mishra, Advocate; Mr. S.B. Panda, AGA for the State; Mr. P. K. Parhi, DSGI along with Mr. S.M. Pattnaik, CGC
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 110