Join our WhatsApp Group
Latest
Wednesday, October 14, 2026
EN हिं Sign In Contribute
Rajasthan High Court
High Courts

Disability Percentage Alone Does Not Decide MBBS Eligibility: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Disability Boards' Opinions

Published: · NyayVidhan

A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court dismissed two special appeals by NEET (UG)-2023 candidates with disabilities whom designated Disability Assessment Boards had declared ineligible for the undergraduate medical course (paras 2, 14, 60). Holding that the 2019 amendments to the Graduate Medical Education Regulations make eligibility, beyond the percentage of disability, a matter for those Boards, the Court declined to sit in appeal over the experts' opinion or to order a fresh examination (paras 39, 41, 45).

Disability Percentage Alone Does Not Decide MBBS Eligibility: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Disability Boards' Opinions

Judgment Intelligence

Petition Dismissed
Anmol v. Union of India & Ors. (with AS v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)
2023:RJ-JP:39699-DB
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 683/2023 (in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13124/2023), with D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 686/2023 (in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13148/2023)
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Date of Decision
20 December 2023
Bench
Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Praveer Bhatnagar
Relevant Acts & Sections
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016; Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997 (as amended on 04.02.2019 and 13.05.2019, Appendix H-1); Constitution of India — Article 226
Final Outcome

Both special appeals dismissed; the Single Judge's orders and the Boards' declarations of ineligibility were not interfered with. The sealed-cover examination papers were returned to counsel for the Union of India; no costs (paras 58-61).

View Full Judgment Text

Key holdings

  1. Since the 2019 amendments, the designated Boards decide eligibility for the medical course, not merely the disability percentage (para 39).
  2. Erb's palsy of an upper limb can render a candidate ineligible even within the 40-80% disability range (paras 42, 44).
  3. A variance between State disability certificates and the Board's certificate does not justify a fresh examination (para 46).
  4. Absent mala fides, statutory violation or unfair treatment, the writ court will not sit in appeal over the Board's opinion (paras 41, 47).
  5. Purswani Ashutosh and Parmod were distinguished as decided before the eligibility criteria were added (paras 49, 51).

Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

Anmol, certified by the State with locomotor and speech and language disability, and AS, certified with locomotor disability diagnosed as Erb's palsy of the right upper limb, took NEET (UG)-2023 in the disability category (paras 5-8). The information bulletin required such candidates to obtain a certificate from one of 16 designated Disability Assessment Boards applying the Regulations of 1997 as amended; those found ineligible could not join counselling (paras 9-11). Two Boards in New Delhi declared both ineligible (paras 13-14), and a Single Judge dismissed their writ petitions (para 15). They argued that the certificates ignored Appendix H-1 and the prescribed forms, lacked detailed reasons, conflicted with the State certificates and warranted re-examination (paras 16, 18-19).

Court's Findings

The amendments of 04.02.2019 and 13.05.2019 added eligibility conditions apart from the quantified percentage: Appendix H-1 treats "both hands intact, with intact sensation, sufficient strength and range of motion" as essential, so the Boards were empowered to examine eligibility, not only the nature and extent of disability (para 39). Anmol's Board quantified 55% speech and 66% locomotor disability, combined by formula at 81%, and recorded involvement of both hands and both feet; the records produced in sealed cover contained the experts' observations, and the opinion-making process need not be detailed (paras 21, 36, 40). AS did not dispute the Erb's palsy finding, which correlates with the hands requirement, so her 60% within the 40-80% range did not make her eligible (paras 37, 42-44). Each Board had three experts; neither their competence nor mala fides was alleged (paras 35, 38). Following Vidhi Himmat Katariya, the Court would not sit as an appellate authority over the experts (paras 34, 41, 47). Eligibility is for the Boards alone, so variance with State certificates is immaterial, and no fresh examination was warranted (paras 45-46). Purswani Ashutosh and Parmod predated the amendments (paras 49, 51).

Legal Principle

For admission to the MBBS course in the disability quota, a benchmark percentage alone does not establish eligibility: the designated Disability Assessment Board must also assess the functional conditions in Appendix H-1, and its expert opinion, absent mala fides, statutory violation or unfair treatment, is not reassessed by the writ court or replaced by a fresh examination (paras 39, 45-47).

Precedents Relied Upon

  1. Vidhi Himmat Katariya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (2019) 10 SCC (20) [as printed, footnote 1]; W.P. (C) No. 885/2019 [footnote 3] (Supreme Court)
    Followed Discussed at ¶ 17, 20, 34, 47, 50

    Where the expert bodies have opined against candidates on the essential eligibility criterion of both hands intact with intact sensation, sufficient strength and range of motion, the Court would not sit as an appellate authority over that opinion, particularly in the absence of mala fides.

  2. Purswani Ashutosh (Minor) v. Union of India & Ors. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 669/2018 (Supreme Court)
    Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 17, 20, 49, 51

    Decided under the scheme before the 2019 amendments to the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997, which now incorporate the experts' eligibility criteria.

  3. Parmod v. Union of India & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 10353/2018 (Supreme Court)
    Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 17, 51

    Rendered in the light of Purswani Ashutosh when the Regulations of 1997 contained no statutory eligibility prescription.

View all precedents (35)
  1. Raghav Agarwal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9483/2017 (Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur)
    Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 17, 52

    Relief there followed a fresh medical examination and the Board's explanation that several subjects need no surgical precision; reliance held misplaced on facts.

  2. Ms. Geetika Tanwar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15318/2017 (Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur)
    Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 17, 53

    Admission was directed on the basis of the report obtained; the decision turned purely on its facts.

  3. Vijay Kumar Mali v. Union of India & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11353/2023 (Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur)
    Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 17, 57

    Turned on its own facts (named 'Vinay Kumar Mali' in para 57).

  4. Mukul Vairagi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10944/2023 (Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur)
    Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 17, 57

    Turned on its own facts.

  5. Dashrath Kumar Kuldeep v. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Anr. D.B. Civil Special Appeal Writ No. 463/2017 [para 54]; D.B.C.W.P. No. 463/2017 [footnote 1] (Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur)
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 17, 54

    Narrated: in appeal, upper-limb disability was held not to be a basis to deny the benefit of reservation, in view of Sections 2(t), 2(i) and 39 of the 2016 Act.

  6. Manohar Lal Swami v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11241/2019
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 55

    The validity of the 2019 amendment with Appendix H was upheld; no relief to a candidate found below benchmark disability and lacking the minimum functional abilities required of a medical graduate.

  7. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. v. J. Vibin & Anr. W.A. (MD) No. 1481/2018 [para 56]; D.B.W.A.(MD) No. 1481/2018 [footnote 1] (Madras High Court)
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 17, 56

    Decided before the 13.05.2019 amendment: the MCI notification operated prospectively and could not render ineligible a candidate admitted before it.

  8. Vibhushita Sharma v. Union of India & Ors. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 793/2022 (Supreme Court)
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 17

    Cited by counsel for appellant Anmol (footnote 1).

  9. Dr. Pooja SN v. Union of India & Ors. W.P. No. 16631/2023 (Karnataka High Court)
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 18

    Cited by counsel for appellant AS (footnote 2).

  10. Anshul Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4541/2022
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 18

    Cited by counsel for appellant AS (footnote 2).

  11. All Kerala Parents Association Hearing Impaired v. State of Kerela & Ors. C.A. No. 6120/2001
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 20

    Cited by counsel for the respondents (footnote 3).

  12. Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Health v. Sanchita Biswas C.A. No. 4064/2000
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 20

    Cited by counsel for the respondents (footnote 3).

  13. Dr. Raman Khanna v. University of Delhi & Ors. W.P. (c) 2670/2003
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 20

    Cited by counsel for the respondents (footnote 3).

  14. D.S. Rashmi Rajan v. Chairman, J.E.E. & Ors. W.P. Nos. 7877 & 7878/2004
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 20

    Cited by counsel for the respondents (footnote 3).

  15. MCI v. D.S. Rashmi Ranjan & Ors. SLP (C) Nos. 7952-53/2005 (listed twice in footnote 3)
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 20

    Cited by counsel for the respondents (footnote 3).

  16. MCI v. D.S. Rashmi Ranjan & Ors. SLP (C) Nos. 8447-8448/2010
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 20

    Cited by counsel for the respondents (footnote 3).

  17. Deepshika v. MCI & Ors. W.P. (C) No. 4218/2014
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 20

    Cited by counsel for the respondents (footnote 3).

  18. Rutuja Dattatraya Raut v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. W.P. 9556/2016
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 20

    Cited by counsel for the respondents (footnote 3).

  19. R. Sakeela v. Secretary to Govt. & Ors. W.P. (MD) No. 15696/2019
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 20

    Cited by counsel for the respondents (footnote 3).

  20. Manohar Lal Swami v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. SLP (C) No. 21366/2019
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 20

    Cited by counsel for the respondents (footnote 3).

  21. Rakshit Yadav v. University College of Medical Science & Ors. W.P. (C) No. 8572/2019
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 20

    Cited by counsel for the respondents (footnote 3).

  22. Purushottam v. Union of India & Ors. W.P. (C) No. 7915/2020
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 20

    Cited by counsel for the respondents (footnote 3).

  23. Purushottam v. Union of India & Ors. SLP (C) No. 14953/2020
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 20

    Cited by counsel for the respondents (footnote 3).

  24. S. Amina v. State of Kerela & Ors. W.P. (C) No. 28457/2020
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 20

    Cited by counsel for the respondents (footnote 3).

  25. Anita Prakash Shinde v. Union of India & Ors. 2021 SCC Online Bom 257
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 20

    Cited by counsel for the respondents (footnote 3).

  26. Anita Prakash Shinde v. Union of India & Ors. SLP (C) No. 18382/2021
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 20

    Cited by counsel for the respondents (footnote 3).

  27. Alok Ranjan v. NMC & Ors. W.P. (C) No. 9933/2020
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 20

    Cited by counsel for the respondents (footnote 3).

  28. Sathe Vaibhavi Sanjay v. State of Gujarat & Anr. SCA No. 2448/2022
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 20

    Cited by counsel for the respondents (footnote 3).

  29. Neha Pudil v. UOI & Ors. W.P. (C) No. 2815/2022
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 20

    Cited by counsel for the respondents (footnote 3).

  30. Ayushi Mansukhbhai Movaliya v. State of Gujarat R/SCA No. 17451/2022
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 20

    Cited by counsel for the respondents (footnote 3).

  31. Ishaben Rameshbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat R/LPA No. 1209/2022
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 20

    Cited by counsel for the respondents (footnote 3).

  32. Ishaben Rameshbhai Patel v. The State of Gujarat & Anr. SLP (C) No. 22692/2022
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 20

    Cited by counsel for the respondents (footnote 3).

Topics: Medical Education Regulation Judicial Review of Expert Opinion Reservation for Persons with Disabilities
NyayVidhan
Court Judgments · 3 min read
Decided: December 20, 2023 Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice...

Related Judgments

Investment in Separate Units Under Same Ownership Not Clubbed for MSME Concessional CST Rate: Rajasthan High Court
Rajasthan High Court

Investment in Separate Units Under Same Ownership Not Clubbed for MSME Concessional CST Rate: Rajasthan High Court

Oct 7, 2026
Failed Demand Verification, No Bribe Demand: Rajasthan High Court Quashes ACB FIR Against Two Bikaner Policemen
Rajasthan High Court

Failed Demand Verification, No Bribe Demand: Rajasthan High Court Quashes ACB FIR Against Two Bikaner Policemen

Oct 6, 2026
Excise-Duty Restrictions Do Not Bar CENVAT Credit of CVD on Imported Coal: Rajasthan High Court
Rajasthan High Court

Excise-Duty Restrictions Do Not Bar CENVAT Credit of CVD on Imported Coal: Rajasthan High Court

Oct 5, 2026
WhatsApp Telegram X / Twitter LinkedIn

✕

Try: POCSO, IBC, Electoral Bond, Article 370, NDPS Act, Bail Conditions, SC Contempt