WP/39486/2026 of MALARVASANTHARAJAN M Vs Minisry of Health and Family Welfare on 29 September 2026

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned Appellate Medical Assessment Certificate No. 2026-AUG/ UDID/ 001922 dated 12.08.2026 issued by the 4th Respondent, insofar as it assessed the petitioner’s locomotor disability at 30 percentage, and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent to consider the Petitioners Valid UDID Card bearing No. TN5990520060008344 and consequently permit the Petitioner to Participate in the MBBS Counselling /admission Process under the PwBD Category.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has a locomotor disability and he has been examined by the team of competent doctors and assessed the disability at 50%. The petitioner has also been issued with Unique Disability Identity (UDID) Card recording the petitioner’s disability at 50%. The said UDID card was issued by the competent authority namely the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (hereinafter referred as the Department (DEPwD). On the strength of the aforesaid UDID card, the petitioner applied for the NEET-UG 2026, under the PwBD category. During the counselling process, since the 4th respondent insisted to produce a disability certificate issued by the Medical Assessment Board, the petitioner appeared before the Regional Medical Board constituted by the 4th respondent. After examining the petitioner, the 4th respondent issued an assessment certificate recording the petitioner’s disability at 25%. Aggrieved over, the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Disability Assessment Board, wherein the petitioner’s disability was assessed at 30%.

3. He would further submit that the assessment of disability by the Medical Board at 25% and thereafter by the Appellate Disability Assessment Board at 30% is wholly inconsistent with the earlier assessment of 50% recorded in the petitioner’s UDID card. According to the petitioner, his UDID

card has been issued by the competent authority, after due clinical assessment and records his disability at 50% and based on the aforesaid UDID Card, the petitioner was permitted to participate in the NEET-UG 2026 examination under the PwBD category. In such circumstances, the subsequent assessment made by the Regional Medical Board at 25% and the Appellate Medical Board at 30% has resulted in a substantial reduction from the disability percentage, already recorded in the UDID Card. The petitioner contended that, the role of assessment authority is confined to assessing the functional competencies and suitability of the candidate for pursuing the MBBS Course, on the basis of the disability certificate/declaration and other relevant materials furnished by the candidate. Contrary to the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in W.P.(Civil) No.1093 of 2022 in Vishal Gupta Vs. Union of India and others, the 4th respondent has proceeded to independently re-assess the petitioner’s disability and has arrived at a finding that the petitioner has 30% disability. Hence, this writ petition.

4. Learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and the learned Senior Central Government Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would submit that pursuant to the Department (DEPwD) Circular dated 19.09.2024 regarding the Advisory, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.10611 of 2024 dated 15.10.2024 directed the 2nd respondent to frame the guidelines. Taking into consideration of the said order, the 2nd respondent framed the guideline on Assessment of Persons with Benchmark Disabilities specifically Clause Nos.9.2, 9.3, 11.1 and 11.2E. In terms of Clause 9.6, the disability determined by the Department (DEPwD) cannot be completely disregarded and only the genuninety of the UDID card can be verified. Only in case the Medical Institution/Hospitals/Medical Boards equipped with better terms of tools, equipments, machines, technologies other than the tools and equipments used by the Department (DEPwD), they can redetermine the disability.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent; learned Senior Special Central Government Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 3 and 4.

6. Considering the submissions made by both parties, it is evident that in the present case, the petitioner’s disability was assessed at 50% locomotor disability and the UDID card has also been issued on 10.06.2025. On the strength of the aforesaid UDID card, the petitioner applied for the NEET-UG 2026, under the PwBD category. During the counselling process, since the 4th respondent insisted to produce a disability certificate issued by the Medical Assessment Board, the petitioner appeared before the Regional Medical Board constituted by the 4th respondent. After examining the petitioner, the 4th respondent issued an assessment certificate recording the petitioner’s disability at 25%. Aggrieved over, the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Disability Assessment Board, wherein the petitioner’s disability was assessed at 30%. According to the petitioner there is variation in the assessment of disability by the Medical Assessment Board and the Appellate Disability Assessment Board and therefore, this assessment cannot be mechanically treated as conclusive for the purpose of denying the petitioner’s statutory entitlement.

7. For better appreciation Clause No.2 of the Revised Advisory dated 15.10.2025 issued by the Department (DEPwD) and Clause 9.2 and 9.6 of the Guidelines on Assessment of Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) issued by the 2nd respondent are extracted hereunder:- “2. Ensuring that Disability type and percentage of disability is correctly assessed and meets functional requirements of job/course Presently, UDID card is issued to PwDs through a decentralized mechanism of medical examination in various district/sub district hospitals as notified by respective state/UT governments. The disability assessment guidelines, issued vide reference-6 above, have been framed based on infrastructure, expertise and training available in various parts of country to carry out the disability assessment. However, it is possible that medical institutions/Hospitals/Medical Boards empanelled by GE/GIHE/OHEI may be better equipped in terms of tools, equipments, machines, technologies to have more accurate assessment of the disability using disability assessment guidelines issued by Department (DEPwD). Medical institutions/Hospitals/Medical Boards can therefore additionally use those tools, equipments. assessment while evaluating a candidate for disability for jobs or admission with GE/GIHE/OHEI.”

9. Eligibility and Documentation 9.2 Every such candidate shall possess a valid Permanent Unique Disability Identity (UDID) Card issued through the UDID Portal by the Deaprtment of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan), Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India, The UDID Card shall serve as the primary documentary evidence of the existence, nature and extent of the specified disability for the purposes of these Guidelines.

9.6 A candidate shall not be denied consideration under the PwBD category solely on account of a procedural defect or discrepancy in the Permanent UDID Card, provided that such defect is capable of rectification and the specified disability is otherwise established in accordance with law.

8. A perusal of the aforesaid Clause 2 of the Revised Advisory dated 15.10.2025 would show that only in case where the Medical institutions/ Hospitals/Medical Boards are better equipped in terms of tools, equipments, they can additionally use those tools, equipments for assessment and the disability can be redetermined. In the present case, the 4th respondent has not used any new tools or equipments to evaluate the petitioner’s disability. Therefore, such re-determination of petitioner’s disability is un-sustainable. 9 .Further Clause 9.2 and 9.6 would show that the 2nd respondent issued guideline to possess valid UDID Card issued by the Department (DEPwD)for the purpose of availing admission under the PwBD quota. These guidelines were issued pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to frame the guidelines based on the advisory issued by the Department (DEPwD). When the guidelines issued for the admission in the medical courses mandates to possess UDID card, re-determining the disability assessed by the Department (DEPwD)

contrary to the Revised Advisory issued by the Department (DEPwD) is not proper.

10. The petitioner possess the valid UDID card issued by the competent authority recording his disability at 50%. The Medical Assessment Board and the Appellate Disability Assessment Board has not used any new or advance tools or equipment other than the tools used by the Department (DEPwD). Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioner ought not to have referred for re-determination of disability. Thus, the 3rd respondent is directed to permit the petitioner to participate in the MBBS Counselling/admission Process under the PwBD quota based on the petitioner’s UDID card.

11. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 29-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MST

To

1. Minisry of Health and Family Welfare 3rd and 4th Floor, India Red Cross Society Building, No.1, Red Cross Road, Sansad Marg Area, New Delhi- 110 001.

2. The Secretary, National Medical Commission Pocket 14, Sector 8, Dwaraka, Phase 1, New Delhi- 110 077.

3. The Director Directorate of Medical Education and Research, 162, EVR Periyar High Road, Kilpauk,Chennai-010

4. The Chairman, Regional Medical Board Rep. by its Chairman, Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Park Town,Chennai-03.

5. The Commissioner Commissionerate for the Welfare of Differently Abled Persons No.5, Kamarajar Salai,Chennai- 05.

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J. MST WP No. 39486 of 2026 29-09-2026