# Maaz Ahmad v. U.O.I. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 229
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-07
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 7585 of 2025
- **Bench:** Pankaj Bhatia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/maaz-ahmad-v-u-o-i-ors-53656
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

A.S.G.I.,
C.S.C.,
Gyanendra
Kumar
Srivastava,
Shahsank
Bhasin,
Syed
Mohammad Haidev Rizv

Issue for Consideration
The petitioner , a person with a specified
locomotor disability assessed at 70% permanent
disability by the CMO, Bahraich, had been
issued a Unique Disability ID(UDID)-He sought
reservation
benefits
for
"persons
with
Benchmark disability (PwBD) in the U.P. NEET
UG 2025 counseling-The benefit was denied
because Medical Institute, BHU re-assessed his
disability at 31%, which is less than the 40%
threshold required for benchmark disability
status under section 2(r) of the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities Act,2016.
Headnotes
Civil law-Constitution of India, 1950Article
226-Rights
of
Persons
with
Disabilities Act,2016-S. 2(r), Rule 18,19The court emphasized that the designated
center's role under the National Medical
Council
is
to
assess
the
'functional
disability'-Whether
the
candidate
can
functionally undergo the studies and
rigors of the course-It is not authorized to
reassess or supersede the percentage of
disability reflected in the UDID CardPetition allowed.

Held
The court held that the UDID Card, which
reflected a disability of 70% and established the
petitioner as a person with benchmark disability
must prevail for the grant of reservation-A
certificate issued under the statute and rules
cannot be overridden by an assessment from an
authority not specified under the Act-Thus, the
petitioner is entitled to register for NEET
Examination/counseling with the benefit of
reservation for PwBD.(Para 10 to 29) (E-6)

Case law Cited
Vishal Gupta Vs UOI & Ors, CMWP No. 1093 of
2022, Omkar Ramchandra Gond Vs UOI (2024)
SCC OnLine SC 2860,Purswani Ashutosh Vs UOI
(2019) 14 SCC 422, Anmol Son of Subhash
Chander, Vs UOI & Ors (2023): RJ- JP: 39699DB-referred to.
List of Acts
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,2016

List of Keywords
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,2016,
NEET Examination, Benchmark disability, PwBD,
reservation, UDID Card, specified locomotor
disability, National Medical Council, functional
disability, DGME.

Case Arising From
CIVIL JURISDICTION: WRIT-C No. - 7585 of
2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 0708.2025
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

Maaz
Ahmad
Vs.
U.O.I.
Thru.
Secy.
Ministry of Health and family welfare
Nirman Bhawan New Delhi & 8 Ors.
230 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for Petitioner(s):
Diwakar Singh Gautam , Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi
Advs. for Respondent(s):
 A.S.G.I.,C.S.C., Gyanendra Kumar Srivastava,
Shashank Bhasin, Syed Mohammad Haider Rizv.

## Text

_Characters 0–39,586 of 43,533. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39586 for what follows._

8 All. Maaz Ahmad Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
229
respondent
no.3,
due
to
which
the
petitioner has suffered financial loss. Thus,
in view of the aforesaid fact, we
compensate him by awarding 6% simple
interest on the aforesaid amount from the
date it was forfeited till the date of its
payment.

41. Thus, for the reasons given above,
the writ petition is allowed with no order as
to costs.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 229
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ C No. 7585 of 2025

Maaz Ahmad ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Diwakar Singh Gautam, Rejeiu Kumar
Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I.,
C.S.C.,
Gyanendra
Kumar
Srivastava,
Shahsank
Bhasin,
Syed
Mohammad Haidev Rizv

Issue for Consideration
The petitioner , a person with a specified
locomotor disability assessed at 70% permanent
disability by the CMO, Bahraich, had been
issued a Unique Disability ID(UDID)-He sought
reservation
benefits
for
"persons
with
Benchmark disability (PwBD) in the U.P. NEET
UG 2025 counseling-The benefit was denied
because Medical Institute, BHU re-assessed his
disability at 31%, which is less than the 40%
threshold required for benchmark disability
status under section 2(r) of the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities Act,2016.
Headnotes
Civil law-Constitution of India, 1950Article
226-Rights
of
Persons
with
Disabilities Act,2016-S. 2(r), Rule 18,19The court emphasized that the designated
center's role under the National Medical
Council
is
to
assess
the
'functional
disability'-Whether
the
candidate
can
functionally undergo the studies and
rigors of the course-It is not authorized to
reassess or supersede the percentage of
disability reflected in the UDID CardPetition allowed.

Held
The court held that the UDID Card, which
reflected a disability of 70% and established the
petitioner as a person with benchmark disability
must prevail for the grant of reservation-A
certificate issued under the statute and rules
cannot be overridden by an assessment from an
authority not specified under the Act-Thus, the
petitioner is entitled to register for NEET
Examination/counseling with the benefit of
reservation for PwBD.(Para 10 to 29) (E-6)

Case law Cited
Vishal Gupta Vs UOI & Ors, CMWP No. 1093 of
2022, Omkar Ramchandra Gond Vs UOI (2024)
SCC OnLine SC 2860,Purswani Ashutosh Vs UOI
(2019) 14 SCC 422, Anmol Son of Subhash
Chander, Vs UOI & Ors (2023): RJ- JP: 39699DB-referred to.
List of Acts
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,2016

List of Keywords
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,2016,
NEET Examination, Benchmark disability, PwBD,
reservation, UDID Card, specified locomotor
disability, National Medical Council, functional
disability, DGME.

Case Arising From
CIVIL JURISDICTION: WRIT-C No. - 7585 of
2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 0708.2025
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

Maaz
Ahmad
Vs.
U.O.I.
Thru.
Secy.
Ministry of Health and family welfare
Nirman Bhawan New Delhi & 8 Ors.
230 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for Petitioner(s):
Diwakar Singh Gautam , Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi
Advs. for Respondent(s):
 A.S.G.I.,C.S.C., Gyanendra Kumar Srivastava,
Shashank Bhasin, Syed Mohammad Haider Rizv.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J.)

1. Heard Shri Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi
and Shri Diwakar Singh Gautam learned
counsel(s) for the petitioner and Shri S.B.
Pandey, learned Senior Advocate and
D.S.G.I. assisted by Shri Anand Dwivedi,
learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 4;
Shri Gyanendra Kumar Srivastava, learned
counsel for respondent no.5; Shri Manish
Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for
respondent no.6 and Shri Vikas Rai,
learned counsel for respondent no.7.

2. Present petition has been filed by
the petitioner who is suffering from
benchmark disability as defined under the
provisions of the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred
to as "Act"). The claim of the petitioner is
that the petitioner is suffering from
benchmark disability as defined under
Section 2(r) of the Act which is quoted
hereinbelow:

"2. Definitions.-In this Act,
unless the context otherwise requires,-

...

(r)
"person
with
benchmark
disability" means 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;"

3. It is argued that the present
petitioner also belongs to Other Backward
Class, for which, a certificate was granted
to the petitioner. It is stated that the
petitioner after qualifying the CBSE ClassXII examination approached the Chief
Medical Officer, Bahraich, an Authority
designated under Section 57 of the Act and
also empowered from the Department of
Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities
under the Ministry of Social Justice and
Empowerment, Govt. of India, in whose
case, the locomotor disability was assessed
with 70% permanent disability in relation
to body and leg of the petitioner. The said
certificate is on record as Annexrue No.4. It
is also stated that the petitioner was issued
a Unique Disability ID (for short 'UDID')
on 07.07.2023 by the Competent Authority.
The petitioner, desirous of appearing in the
NEET examination, held by the NTA,
applied in terms of public notice dated
07.02.2025
and
filled
the
necessary
information as contained in the information
bulletin. The petitioner claimed the benefit
of reservation which flow in favour of
'persons
with
benchmark
disability'
(hereinafter referred to as "PwBD").

4. It is claimed that after the
petitioner appeared in the examination, he
obtained All India Rank 997 in the category
of PwBD. It is stated that after having
qualified the NEET Examination with the
rank as mentioned herein above, the
petitioner was to appear in the first round
of counseling/registration for U.P. NEET
UG 2025 wherein, the commencement of
online registration was mentioned as from
18.07.2025 upto 28.07.2025. In the said
bulletin issued in the Chapter 3 titled as
reservation, bullet point no.4 after Para
'Kha', it was mentioned that the disability
certificate shall be accepted which has been
issued by the centres designated by
Director
General
of
Health
Services
(DGHS), Ministry of Health and Family
8 All. Maaz Ahmad Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
231
Welfare, New Delhi as per its guidelines
and prescribed format. In the said brochure
which has been filed as Annexure No.13,
Enclosure No.V contains the list of centres
which are empowered to issue disability
certificates as per the NMC norms to the
persons suffering from the disability as
prescribed under the Act. It is stated that
when the petitioner appeared before the
Medical Institute, BHU, which is notified
under the Brochure, he filed an application
and appeared before the Three Member
Team which granted a medical certificate
showing his disability assessed at 31%
disability, however, he was declared
qualified to undertake medical studies in
the funcational disability test. It is argued
that as the benefit of the disability assessed
by the Centre notified in the scheme was
less than 40%, he would naturally not be
entitled to the benefit of reservation
accorded to the students suffering from
benchmark disability which is more than
40%.

5. In the light of the said, the said
medical certificate has been challenged
alongwith a prayer that the petitioner
having been issued a UDID demonstrating
that the disability suffered by the petitioner
is more than 40%, the benefit of reservation
cannot be denied to him. It is further argued
that the assessment of the medical done by
the BHU, a centre notified by the NMC,
was done by three doctors of the Neurology
Department
as
is
evident
from
the
certificate itself, thus, the said certificate
has been assailed as having not been issued
in terms of Notification Dated 12.03.2024
issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and
Empowerment.

6. Learned counsel or the petitioner
further argues that all these aspects were
adequately considered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Om Rathod v.
Director General of Health Services and
Ors.; 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3130 to argue
that the benefit which are extendable to the
persons who are suffering from benchmark
disability flow by virtue of the provisions
the Act and the manner of assessing the
disability is prescribed in the Act, the
notification issued by the Ministry of
Health in terms of the directions given by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Om Rathore (Supra).

7. He argues that the manner in
which the disability has been assessed by
the Agency notified by the National
Medical Council, the UDID issued to the
petitioner is rendered useless and in fact
amounts to superseding the UDID issued
by
the
petitioner
which
is
neither
prescribed nor can be done. He, thus, prays
that the petitioner may be permitted to
undergo and register for counseling with
the respondent. It is stated that the date for
registration
for
counseling
has
been
extended up to 11.08.2025 starting from
08.08.2025.

8.
Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent fairly states that the guidelines
with regard to the assessment of the
persons claiming the benefit of benchmark
disability were incorporated and in the
guidelines issued, it was provided that the
certificate can be issued by the designated
agencies. It is argued that in terms of the
guidelines issued, the respondents are
bound by the same and as the certificate
issued by the Centre, which is designated,
demonstrates the benchmark disability
suffered by the petitioner to be less than
40%, the benefit cannot be granted to the
petitioner and he cannot be permitted to
register as a student suffering from
benchmark disability.
232 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
9. My attention is also drawn to the
guidelines on assessment method for
granting admission in MBBS Course to
PwBD Candidates for the Assessment Year
2025 - 26; the said was produced before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition
(Civil) No.1093 of 2022 (Vishal Gupta v.
Union of India & Ors.) which petition has
been disposed off. The order passed by the
Supreme Court is extracted herein below:

"1. Pursuant to the directions
issued by this Court from time to time, the
National Medical Commission has on
19.07.2025 notified Interim Guidelines On
Assessment
Method
for
Granting
Admission In MBBS Course To PwBD
Candidates
For
AY
2025-2026.
The
relevant portion is extracted herein below
for ready reference:

"INTERIM
GUIDELINES
ON
ASSESSMENT
METHOD
FOR
GRANTING
ADMISSION
IN
MBBS
COURSE TO PwBD CANDIDATES FOR
AY 2025-26

PREAMBLE:

In pursuit of equitable and
inclusive medical education, the National
Medical
Commission
(NMC)
remains
steadfast in its commitment to ensuring fair
access to medical courses for all eligible
candidates,
including
Persons
with
Disabilities (PwD). In alignment with the
provisions of the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016, and the Graduate
Medical
Education
Regulations,
this
interim report outlines the foundational
framework and preparatory measures for
facilitating
the
admission
of
PwBD
candidates in MBBS Course.

This report serves as a step
towards
strengthening
existing
mechanisms, identifying challenges, and
proposing recommendations for creating
an enabling environment that upholds the
principles of dignity, non-discrimination,
and equal opportunity. It focuses on key
aspects such as assessment of disability,
eligibility
criteria,
reasonable
accommodations, accessibility standards,
and institutional readiness.

The
NMC
acknowledges
the
valuable contribution of a diverse medical
workforce and envisions a system where
every aspiring student, irrespective of
physical or cognitive ability, is empowered
to pursue a career in medicine and serve
society with competence and compassion.

1. Introduction

In alignment with the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act,
2016,
and
subsequent
notifications,
particularly the directive issued by the
Ministry
of
Social
Justice
and
Empowerment (MoSJE) on 12.03.2024,
which
underscores
the
principles
of
inclusive
education
and
reasonable
accommodation,
and
the
landmark
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
dated 25.10.2024 in Om Rathod vs Union
of India & Others (SLP (C) No. 21942 of
2024), a significant shift has been initiated
in the national approach toward disability
inclusion in higher education.

xxxx xxxx xxxx

xxxx xxxx xxxx

9. Decision Taken

The expert panel unanimously
agreed on the following for MBBS
admissions under the PwBD category for
AY 2025-26:

PwBD candidates must submit:

A valid UDID card issued by a
designated
medical
authority
under
MoSJE.

Self-Certified affidavits in the
format provided under Schedule -I.

The candidate will have to
approach the designated medical board for
verification of their self-certified affidavit.
8 All. Maaz Ahmad Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
233

Designated Medical Boards (16
designated medical boards) are required to
undertake following duties:

• The competencies mentioned in
the appendix under Schedule-I are basic &
mandatory.
The
candidates,
to
the
satisfaction of the designated medical
board, may demonstrate the competencies
that have been declared by him/her. If the
board finds the declared competencies
unsubstantiated based on the candidate's
performance, it must issue a reasoned
decision declaring him/her ineligible to
pursue medical course.

• If the candidate while selfdeclaring
the
essential
competencies
mentions one or more competencies in
negative or is not able to demonstrate one
or
more
of
the
listed
essential
competencies, the board shall see if he/she
is able to compensate such deficits, by
other alternative functionalities; and may
take
a
holistic
view
regarding
his
capability to pursue MBBS course.

• The designated medical boards
may utilize standardized tests and tools to
evaluate the abilities of the candidates, as
per their declaration, instead of focusing
on the disabilities.

• All decisions of the designated
medical board(s) shall be in the form
speaking orders.

• Admissions will be processed by
the counseling authority, based on NEET
2025 scores, institutional preferences, and
verification of required documents by the
concerned designated medical board(s).
Medical
colleges
will
provide
accommodations accordingly."

2. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the present Writ
Petition can be disposed of in terms of the
interim guidelines and the petitioner can
avail the benefit arising out of that
guidelines.

3. The Writ Petition is disposed of
in terms of the above observation.

4. Pending application(s), if any,
shall stand disposed of."

10. In the light of the arguments as
raised and recorded above, it is to be
considered by this Court as to whether the
petitioner would be entitled to take the
benefit of reservation extendable to persons
with benchmark disability as defined under
the Act on the basis of UDID Card issued
to the petitioner or the said benefit can be
denied on the basis of medical assessment
done by the designated agency in terms of
the circular issued by the National Medical
Council.

11.
All
these
aspects
were
considered
by
the
Supreme
Court
extensively in the case of Om Rathord
(supra). The Court had also taken into
consideration
the
facts
and
the
developments leading to the enactment of
the Act. The Court had also noticed that the
persons who were claiming the rights and
reservation
granted
to
persons
with
disability was no more a charity and was a
right entrenched under the Act. The Court
had noticed the form which was required to
be filled by the persons for claiming the
benefit of benchmark disability. Para 22 &
Para 23 of the judgment read as under:

"22.
From
promoting
selfrejection of disabled medical aspirants to
assuming that their accommodations would
lower the standard of competence and
would
regardless
be
fruitless
-
the
guidelines have charted their way into
disrepute. Vitally, the resistance to alter the
standard
in
a
framework
that
has
historically effaced a marginalised group -
namely disabled persons other than in the
capacity of a patient - is antithetical to any
234 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
rights based approach to disability law.
Many other issues of critical importance
arise from these guidelines which are not
germane to evaluate the case before us but
may
be
open
for
an
appropriate
proceeding.7 The current guidelines allow
persons with more than eight percent
locomotor disability to be admitted to
MBBS course on a case by case basis after
a functional competency to see whether
their disability can be 'brought below
80%.' Before proceeding to analyse this
guideline, it is essential that we clarify the
phrase 'brought below 80%'.

23. The intention of the guideline
in using the term 'brought below 80%' is
ostensibly to mean that the functional
assessment shall evaluate if the person with
disability can perform the tasks which they
are expected to perform as a student and a
practitioner. The assumption in using the
phrase 'below 80%' defeats the purpose of
the guideline which is to allow candidates
into the MBBS course on a case by case
basis. Bodies are not biological parts put
together - each to serve a pre-determined
role. They are alive - with thoughts,
feelings, dreams and aspirations. All bodies
- abled and disabled - are guaranteed
dignity under the Constitution. A person
with disability has to navigate the rigours
of a society which was modelled on the
premise of their absence. The disability of a
person is a reflection on the inaccessibility
of the society and not a comment upon the
individual. A person does not overcome
disability but learns to navigate life with it.
Disability is not a thing to be overcome or
brought down, but an attribute to be
acknowledged and accommodated. The use
of the term 'brought below 80%,' as well
intentioned as it may be, fails at this
foundational premise. One cannot assume
that all persons with more than 80%
locomotor disability are incompetent to
pursue medicine when their functional
abilities have not been assessed. The
medical model of disability apparent in the
phrase must give way to a social model of
disability which takes into account the
variety of experiences and outcomes which
persons with disabilities have when they
interact with different kinds of societies and
accommodations."

12. The Court also noticed the Act
which
harmonizes
the
constitutional
promise of full citizenship with action in
Para 26, which reads as under:

 "26. The Act harmonises the
Constitutional promise of full citizenship
with action - by creating a framework in
which
persons
with
disabilities
may
translate their rights into remedies. To
establish a bed of rights, Section 2 of the
Act defines and acknowledges barriers,
discrimination, inclusive education and
reasonable accommodation. Section 3 of
the Act affords the right to equality and
non-discrimination
for
persons
with
disabilities. The requirement of assessing
the functional competence of a medical
aspirant
with
over
eighty
percent
locomotor
disability
recognises
that
assessment must be done on a case to case
basis. The method of assessment by
designated Disability Assessment Boards
must therefore reflect the approach and
intent of the legal framework within which
the Boards operate. An assessment for
functional competency entails an analysis
of the skill set which a person with
disability must learn in order to compete
and pursue the medical course. This is a
marked difference from requiring a specific
manner which a candidate must use to
achieve the outcome. For example, a
functional
competency
model
would
require
a
candidate
to
effectively
8 All. Maaz Ahmad Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
235
communicate with patients but would not
require them to have speech or intact
hands. By focusing on the end points, the
approach avoids any ableism to seep into
the assessment and avoids reifying that
there is one and only one manner to
achieve desired outcomes."

13. The Court also noticed the
observation of the Supreme Court in
another case of Omkar Ramchandra Gond
v. Union of India; 2024 SCC OnLine SC
2860 to the following effect:

 "28. Justice KV Viswanathan
speaking for this Court in Omkar Gond
(supra)
has
applied
a
purposive
interpretation to the guidelines (Appendix
"H-1") in the context of a medical aspirant
with dialectic incapacity. This Court held
that
the
principle
of
reasonable
accommodation in Section 2(y) of the
RPWD Act read with Article 41 of the
Constitution necessarily means that (i) a
person cannot be disqualified merely on the
basis of a benchmark quantification. Such a
criteria would be unconstitutional for being
overbroad; (ii) the Disability Assessment
Board must not act as monotonous
automations looking at the quantified
disability and disqualifying candidates. The
Board must examine if the candidate can
pursue the course with their disability; and
(iii) in doing so, the Board is not merely
obliged to provide assistive devices and
other substances which will help the
candidate. The true role of the Board is to
assess the competence of a candidate."

14. The Court also noticed the
other judgments of the Supreme Court
passed in the context of the Act. The Court
also noticed the other judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Purswani
Ashutosh v. Union of India; (2019) 14
SCC 422 and recorded as under:

 "35. In Purswani Ashutosh v.
Union of India,19 this Court was deciding
if a medical aspirant who had appeared for
the NEET UG Exam 2018 was eligible for
the reservation earmarked for persons with
disabilities. Despite having low vision
impairment - the Medical Board had
opined that the petitioner in that case was
ineligible for reservation. While rejecting
the opinion of the committee, this Court
held that a medical board cannot be
allowed to override the statutory mandate
of providing reservation to persons with
disabilities. No committee has primacy
over the law. We must emphasize that the
opinions of medical boards and committees
are not only required to adhere to legal
standards but must also embody core
principles of the rule of law within their
processes.
This
Court,
following
a
consistent
line
of
precedent,
has
underscored the need for reasoned and
transparent decisions by such boards,
given the profound impact these opinions
have on the life trajectory of individuals
before them."

And the Court while interpreting
the appendix interpreted the same as under:

"37. Appendix "H-1" stipulates
that
assessments,
particularly
for
individuals with locomotor disabilities
exceeding 80%, should focus on evaluating
functional competence. This functional
competency
test
serves
two
critical
purposes. First, it emphasizes the abilities
of the person with a disability, assessing
their
capability
rather
than
their
limitations.
Second,
it
mandates
an
evaluation rooted in practical relevance,
aligning the candidate's abilities with the
functional requirements of the MBBS
curriculum.
Mere
quantification
of
236 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
disability is insufficient and fails to address
the necessary criteria, a position this Court
has consistently upheld as unsatisfactory in
such cases."

15. The Court also observed as
under:

 "39. Courts are not expert bodies
in matters of medicine. The competent
authority to adjudge the eligibility of a
person to pursue a medical course is the
Disability Assessment Board. However,
courts have the jurisdiction to ensure that
the manner in which the Board proceeds
and functions is in compliance with
established principles of law. Ultimately,
the Court will have to rely on the opinion of
the Board to adjudicate the legal remedies
of a person with disability. The interference
of Courts is not to supplant its opinion for
that of the experts but to ensure that a
holistic
evaluation
of
competence
is
conducted and that no person's career is
set at naught with the stroke of a pen."

16. The Supreme Court also
noticed as under:

"53. We have noted above that
Disability Assessment Boards must comply
with rule of law principles by injecting
transparency, fairness and consistency in
their approach. The Boards must further
elaborate on the reasons for the outcome of
their assessment, in particular when they
opine that the candidate is ineligible. The
Disability Assessment Boards must focus
on the functional competence of persons
with disabilities and not merely quantify
the
disability.
The
quantification
of
disability is a task in need of a purpose
within the human rights based model of
disability.
The
functional
competency
approach to assessment for a medical
course is globally recognised. To enable
members of the Assessment Boards in
effectively
applying
the
functional
competency test, they must be adequately
trained by professionals and persons with
disabilities or persons who have worked on
disability justice. These trainings must be
with a view to enhance the understanding
of the Board members in assessing persons
with disabilities and must not pathologize
or problematize them.

54. The disability of a person is
quantified at the time of availing a Unique
Disability ID Card.27 The quantification of
disability is moot at the point of admission
to educational courses since the eligibility
for a person to benefit from reservation
may be evaluated using the quantification
in the UDID Card. If a person with
disability wants to have themself reassessed so as to verify whether their
disability falls within the prescribed
parameters for reservation - they may
choose to do so by updating their UDID
Cards.
The
role
of
the
Disability
Assessment Boards must be tailored (with a
functional competency approach) only for
the course which the candidate seeks to
pursue."

17. The Supreme Court had also
given
the
directions
for
disability
assessment course in Para 57, which is as
under:

"57. The provision of an audit
trail
to
assess
whether
a
given
accommodation required by a student with
disability places an undue burden on the
institution
is
a
vital
safeguard
for
transparency and fairness. Dr Satendra
Singh in his report dated 20 October 2024
has made suggestions to (i) rename the
Disability Assessment Boards as Ability
Assessment Boards to align them better
8 All. Maaz Ahmad Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
237
with their intended purpose; (ii) include a
doctor with disability or who is well
conversant with disability rights in such
Boards; (iii) use a human rights model of
disability
for
assessment;
(iv)
issue
guidance on clinical accommodations; (v)
train the Boards in carrying out the
disability competency assessment; and (vi)
use the Enabling Units to serve as a
contact point for clinical accommodations.
As far as the inclusion of doctors with
disabilities in the Disability Assessment
Boards is concerned - the first respondent
has issued a circular on 24 March 2022
mandating such inclusion. This direction
shall be complied with by all Boards."

18.
Ultimately,
the
following
conclusions were recorded by the Supreme
Court in Para 59 & Para 60, which read as
under:

"59. Our conclusions in light of
this case are formulated in the following
terms:

a. The impugned judgment of the
Nagpur bench of the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay is set aside and the
report of the Disability Assessment Board
of AIIMS, Nagpur dated 13 August 2024 is
quashed for failing to apply the statutory
and regulatory standards applicable to the
assessment of a person with disability;

b. A supernumerary seat shall be
created at the AIIMS, Nagpur and the seat
shall be allocated to the appellant,
provided that he has not already secured a
seat at a college of his choosing;

c. The college shall be given the
report dated 20 October 2024 which makes
suggestions as to the accommodations
which may be extended to the appellant to
successfully pursue the MBBS course;

d.
The
appellant
shall
be
protected from victimisation;

e. The judgment shall apply in
rem.

60. We further conclude as
follows:

a. The second respondent shall
issue fresh guidelines for admitting persons
with disabilities into medical courses. The
committee formulating the guidelines must
include experts with disability or persons
who have worked on disability justice. The
guidelines shall comply with the judgments
of
this
Court
and
contemporary
advancements in disability justice;

b. The Disability Assessment
Boards shall eschew from a benchmark
model to test the functional competence of
medical aspirants with disability. The
second respondent shall issue appropriate
guidelines in this regard;

a. The Disability Assessment
Boards shall include a doctor or health
professional with disability as per the
directions of the first respondent dated 24
March 2022;
 b. The conduct of the Disability
Assessment
Boards
shall
be
fair,
transparent
and
in
compliance
with
principles of the rule of law. Attention must
be
paid
to
ensure
that
candidates
appearing before the Board do not feel
uncomfortable on account of physical or
attitudinal barriers;

c. Reasonable accommodation is
a gateway right to avail all other
fundamental, human and legal rights for
persons with disabilities. Non-availability
of reasonable accommodation amounts to
discrimination and violates substantive
equality of persons with disabilities;

d. The inclusion of persons with
disability in the medical profession would
enhance the quality of healthcare and meet
the preambular virtue of fraternity and the
guarantees in Articles 21, 19, 14 and 15 of
the Constitution;
238 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

e.
Applicants
to
the
NEET
examination must be informed about the
compliance of accessibility norms and
provisions of reasonable accommodation
available at colleges. The respondents shall
issue appropriate directions to create a
database with relevant information on
accessibility
and
reasonable
accommodation; and

f. Enabling Units at medical
colleges shall act as points of contact for
persons
with
disability
desirous
of
accessing clinical accommodations."

19. My attention is also draws to
another judgment of Rajasthan High Court
in the case of Anmol Son of Subhash
Chander, v. Union of India & Ors.;
2023:RJ-JP:39699-DB
wherein
the
Division Bench of the Rajasthan High
Court dealt with almost a similar issue and
observed as under:

"34. Before proceeding to deal
with the various aspects of challenge to the
correctness and validity of the aforesaid
certificates
issued
by
the
respective
disabilities Assessment Boards in favour of
appellants, it would be profitable to refer to
the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Vidhi Himmat Katariya
& Ors. vs State of Gujarat & Ors.,
delineating the scope and limitations of
judicial review as below:

"8. Now so far as the submission
on behalfofthe petitioners that while
denying admission to the petitioners the
State Government and/or authorities have
not considered the relevant parameters and
have not considered that the respective
petitioners are able to perform well is
concerned, it is required to be noted that in
the present case all the expert bodies
including the Medical Board, Medical
Appellate Board and even the Medical
Board of AIIMS, New Delhi consisting of
the experts have opined against the
petitioners and their cases are considered
in light of the relevant essential eligibility
criteria as mentioned as Appendix 'H' -
'Both hands intact, with intact sensation,
sufficient strength and range of motion'.
Therefore, when the experts in the field
have opined against the petitioners, the
Court would not be justified in sitting over
as an appellate authority against the
opinion formed by the experts- in the
present case, the Medical Board, Medical
Appellate Board and the Medical Board of
AIIMS, New Delhi, more particularly when
there are no allegations of mala fides."

40. Learned counsel appearing
for the appellant-Anmol assailed the
correctness of the certificate issued by the
Assessment Board mainly on the basis that
the certificate of disability did not contain
any observation and medical opinion in
respect of the locomotor disability in
regard to "both hands intact with intact
sensation, sufficient strength and range of
motion". Therefore, it is submitted that
inference only from the conclusion remarks
and reasons could not be drawn and that
the experts must properly examine the
appellants
in
respect
of
locomotor
disability with regard to the aforesaid
aspect of requirement of both hands intact
with intact sensation, sufficient strength
and range of motion.

We are unable to accept this
submission. The certificate of disability
issued in respect of the appellant is based
on the examination of the appellant-Anmol
by as many as three experts. Theopinion
making process need not be detailed nor is
the requirement of law. In compliance of
the directions issued by this Court,
respondent-Union of India has produced
before
us
the
papers
containingexamination of appellant-Anmol
8 All. Maaz Ahmad Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
239
which contained various observations,
which culminated in the issuance of
certificate. The experts made several
observations in those examination papers
and then concluded that the appellant is not
eligible to pursue the medical course. The
total percentage of disability has also been
foundto be 81%. The x-ray report has also
been attached.

Reference has been made to
various provisions contained in the Rights
of Persons with Disability Rules, 2017
particularly Rule2(a), 2(b), 2(c), Rules of
2017, Rules of 2018 and various formats
referable to these Rules to submit that the
certificate is not strictly in accordance with
the prescription given in this form. In our
opinion, once the opinion of the experts
that the appellant-Anmol is not eligible on
account of the remarks contained in
certificate which itself is based on medical
examination of body of experts, the
decision of the respondents to hold Anmol
ineligible cannot be faulted on such
grounds."

20. In addition to the law as
explained, from perusal of the Act, it is
clear that the rights and entitlements of the
persons suffering from disability and
persons with benchmark disability flow in
their favour by virtue of Chapter II. Special
provisions for persons with benchmark
disability have been prescribed in Chapter
VI which also include reservation in terms
of the mandate of Section 34. Chapter IX of
the said Act prescribes for registration of
institutions for persons with disabilities and
grants to such institutions. Chapter X of the
said Act prescribes for certification of
specified disabilities. It prescribes for the
guidelines for assessment, designation of
the certifying authorities, procedure for
certification and appeal against the decision
of the certifying authority.
21. Rule 17 and Rule 18 prescribe
for manner of applying for disability
certificate and the issuance of a disability
certificate which after amendment in the
year 2024 read as under:

"17. Application for disability
certificate and UDID Card.- (1) Any
person with specified disability may apply
in Form -IV for a disability certificate/
Unique Disability Identity (UDID) Card
and submit the application through UDID
Portal to:

(a) a medical authority or any
other notified competent medical authority
to issue such a certificate in the district of
residence of the applicant as mentioned in
the proof of residence in the application; or

(b)
the
concerned
medical
authority in a hospital where he may be
undergoing
or
may
have
undergone
treatment in connection with his disability:

Provided that where a person
with disability is a minor or suffering from
intellectual
disability
or
any
other
Disability which renders him unfit or
unable to make such an application
himself, the application on his behalf may
be made by his legal guardian or by any
organisation registered under the Act
having the minor under its care.

(2) The application shall be
accompanied by -

(a) proof of identity;

(b) a recent photograph not older
than six months;

(c) proof of residence;

(d) aadhaar number or aadhaar
enrolment number.

Note: if an Aadhaar Card is
submitted as proof of identity, no additional
documents will be required for address
proof in case Aadhaar has the same
residential address"
240 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

In the said rules, for rule 18, the
following
rule
shall
be
substituted,
namely:-

"18.
Issue
of
disability
certificate/ UDID Card.- (1) On receipt of
an application under rule 17, the medical
authority or any other notified competent
medical
authority
shall
verify
the
information as provided by the applicant
and shall assess the disability in terms of
the relevant guidelines issued by the
Central Government and after satisfying
himself that the applicant is a person with
disability, issue a disability certificate in
Form-V and Form-VI and one of the three
types of colour-coded UDID card in form
VII in his favour, as the case may be. One
of the three types of colour- coded UDID
Card shall be issued based on the severity
of the disability-

a. White Band Card: When the
disability percentage of a Person with
Disability is below forty percent.

b. Yellow Band Card: When the
disability percentage of a Person with
Disability is forty percent or above but
below eighty percent.

c. Blue Band Card: When the
disability percentage of a Person with
Disability is eighty percent or above."

22. Rule 19 of the said Rules
prescribes that a person to whom a
certificate is issued under Rule 18 shall be
entitled for all the facilities, concessions
and benefits admissible for persons under
the scheme of the Government and of NonGovernment
Organization.
Thus,
the
certificate once issued is valid for claiming
the benefits as flow in pursuance to the
prescriptions contained in the Act and the
various statutes.

23. The said once issued under the
statute and the rules framed cannot be
overridden by any assessment done by any
authority which is not an authority specified
under the Act and the Rules.

24. In the present case, the disability
of the petitioner has been reassessed by the
designated centre in terms of the guidelines
prescribed by the National Medical Council.
The said guidelines itself appear to be in
variance with the interim guidelines for
assessment method as were produced before
the Supreme Court which led to the disposal
of Writ Petition (Civil) No.1093 of 2022
(supra).

25. Irrespective of the said fact, the
only function which can be assigned to the
authorities designated in terms of the
guidelines issued by the National Medical
Commission Act can be to assess the
'functional disability' for which the candidate
would have to undergo test to form a view as
to whether the person who has applied for
NEET Examination is functionally able to
undergo the studies and the rigours of the
course. The same does not authorize the
designated agency to reassess the disability
suffered by the candidate in terms of the
certificate issued by the UDID Authority.

26.