letter dated 01.11.2025 issued by 1^st respondent, with consequential direction not to cancel the allotment/admission in MBBS course pursuant to provisional allotment letter dated 23.10.2025 and to confirm admission under the reserved category of Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD).

¶18

HCJ & CGR, J W.P. No.31035 of 2025

¶19

¶20

2. (a) 1^st petitioner was issued Unique Disability ID by

¶21

Government of India certifying disability type as low vision with 50% disability. 1^st Petitioner appeared for NEET UG 2025 and secured All India Rank of 413261, and within category of PwBD, secured rank of 642. In terms of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Om Rathod vs. Union of India¹ , 4^th respondent issued interim guidelines on assessment method for granting admissions in MBBS course to PwBD candidates for academic year 2025-26, and also notified list of disability certification centres that would issue disability certificates. 2^nd petitioner is the father of 1^st petitioner.

¶22

(b) 1^st petitioner appeared before one of such designated medical assessment boards as enlisted and was issued certificate dated 30.09.2025 assessing the disability type as low vision with 50% disability.

¶23

(c) In the process of counselling, petitioner got selected for admission under OBC-PwBD quota, accordingly was issued provisional allotment letter dated 23.10.2025 granting admission at

¶24

1^st respondent college. When 1^st petitioner reported before

¶25

1^st respondent, he was once again subjected to reassessment of

¶26

1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4000

¶27

HCJ & CGR, J W.P. No.31035 of 2025

¶28

¶29

specified disability and by impugned proceedings, the admission was cancelled on the ground that 1^st petitioner was found not to have possessed any visual or other disability as mentioned in UDID, hence, would not qualify for admission under PwBD category.

¶30

(d) Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is preferred.

¶31

3. By order dated 07.11.2025, coordinate Bench of this Court, while issuing notice in the writ petition, directed 1^st respondent to admit and permit 1^st petitioner to pursue the course inasmuch as provisional admission was granted based on disability certificate dated 30.09.2025 issued by Medical Board of Goa Medical College, however, it was made clear that the admission based on the interim order will be subject to result in main writ petition and that writ petitioner shall not claim any equities in case decision in main writ petition goes against him.

¶32

4. For better understanding, we reproduce the operative portion as under:

¶33

“Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be interim direction to the 1^st respondent to admit and permit the 1^st petitioner pursuant to the provisional allotment letter dated 23.10.2025 issued by the 3^rd respondent on the basis of the disability

¶34

HCJ & CGR, J W.P. No.31035 of 2025

¶35

¶36

certificate dated 30.09.2025 issued by the Medical Board of Goa Medical College to pursue his MBBS course by attending the classes in All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Mangalagiri. The said admission of the 1^st petitioner in MBBS course in AIIMS pursuant to the interim direction given will be subject to the result of the main writ petition. The 1^st petitioner shall not claim any equities in case the decision in main writ petition goes against him.”

¶37

5. Based on aforesaid interim order, 1^st petitioner was admitted and he continues to pursue the course. Subsequently, when the matter was listed on 09.12.2025, this Court was confronted with assessment of disability of 1^st petitioner by two medical boards, one in favour of 1^st petitioner and the other going against him. In that background, since there existed serious doubt whether 1^st petitioner at all suffers from any benchmark disability, learned counsel for petitioners was suggested to seek instructions whether 1^st petitioner would be willing to undergo further medical examination by an independent medical board. In response, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners, upon instructions, expressed willingness to undergo medical examination. In those circumstances, the following directions came to be issued:

¶38

HCJ & CGR, J W.P. No.31035 of 2025

¶39

¶40

“Be that as it may, since doubts have been created as to whether petitioner No.1 at all suffers from any benchmark disability, it is suggested to the learned counsel for the petitioners to take instructions as to whether petitioner No.1 is willing to undertake a medical examination by any independent Medical Board.

¶41

Thus, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would suggest that candidate is willing to undergo medical examination by one of the authorized Medical Assessment Boards and in this case, he suggested the Medical Board constituted in Atal Bihari Vajpayee Institute of Medical Sciences & RML Hospital, New Delhi.

¶42

Be that as it may, we direct the Director of the above mentioned Institute to have petitioner No.1 medically examined to determine his benchmark disability by a duly authorized and constituted Medical Board with specialists from the concerned field to determine as to whether petitioner No.1 suffers from any visual disability and the extents thereof. Petitioner No.1 shall be present himself for medical examination on 15.12.2025.”

¶43

6. Subsequently, when the matter was listed on 30.12.2025, it was brought to notice of this Court that the medical board constituted at Atal Bihari Vajpayee Institute of Medical Sciences and RML Hospital, New Delhi, could not conduct the assessment

¶44

due to lack of requisite machinery, medical examination of

¶45

HCJ & CGR, J W.P. No.31035 of 2025

¶46

¶47

1^st petitioner was directed to be conducted by Medical Board constituted in Madras Medical College (MMC), Chennai. The directions issued thus read as under:

¶48

“9. In the aforesaid circumstances, we direct the medical examination of petitioner No.1 by the Medical Board constituted in Madras Medical College (MMC), Chennai.

¶49

Principal of the said medical college shall ensure that the petitioner is examined by a duly constituted Medical Board constituted by the Medical Counselling Committee of India.”

¶50

7. 1^st petitioner did subject himself to assessment in terms of aforesaid directions. The Medical Board vide certificate dated 12.01.2026 assessed with remarks, "(BE) Compound Myopic Astigmatism (Malingering test Positive)". Thus, 1^st petitioner was held to be not eligible for MBBS course under PwBD quota. Further, the Medical Superintendent of 1^st respondent, by interoffice file No.AIIMS/MG/OPH/ MSO/2026/06/03, decoded medical terminology as mentioned in aforesaid report in following terms:

¶51

“Remarks column mentions (BE) Compound myopic astigmatism [Malingering test positive]. Explanation of the terms:

¶52

(BE) stands for Both Eyes

¶53

HCJ & CGR, J W.P. No.31035 of 2025

¶54

¶55

Compound myopic astigmatism is a common refractive error where both of the eye's main meridians are nearsighted (myopic) but to different degrees. Standard eyeglasses containing both spherical and cylindrical lenses are used to correct the vision.

¶56

Tests for malingering (functional visual loss) in ophthalmology are used to identify patients who are exaggerating or faking vision loss. Ophthalmologists expose the exaggeration by relying on involuntary reflexes that bypass the patient's conscious control.”

¶57

8. When aforesaid report, along with inter-office file, was supplied to petitioners, learned counsel appearing for them sought time to get instructions on various occasions.

¶58

9. Sri Rama Mohan Rao Kotha, learned counsel appearing for petitioners, vehemently contended that the impugned seat cancellation letter issued by 1^st respondent is without jurisdiction, and further that when already 1^st petitioner has been subjected to assessment by the Medical Board at Goa, question of yet again examining 1^st petitioner to determine the disability factor either by 1^st respondent or any other medical assessment board does not arise, therefore, urged to allow the writ petition.

¶59

10. (a) Mr.Jupudi VK Yagnadutt, learned counsel appearing for 1^st respondent, while refuting aforesaid submissions, contended

¶60

HCJ & CGR, J W.P. No.31035 of 2025

¶61

¶62

that firstly, 1^st respondent would not come under the purview of National Medical Commission, therefore, even if a provisional admission is granted and student is sponsored to 1^st respondent, it is well within the powers of 1^st respondent to assess the benchmark disability to be in conformity with the provisions of PwBD Act for the purpose of granting admission, therefore, rightly 1^st petitioner has been refused admission as he was found to be ineligible.

¶63

(b) He further contended that the very provisional allotment letter dated 23.10.2025 itself clearly specifies that any such allotment is purely provisional and the seat of candidate is liable for cancellation in case candidate does not fulfill the eligibility criteria on verification of original documents at the time of reporting or any time thereafter, therefore, as 1^st petitioner was found to be ineligible, the seat allotment was rightly cancelled.

¶64

(c) He lastly contended that when 1^st petitioner himself has come forward to undergo medical assessment before independent medical body other than the one which has first assessed or by the 1^st respondent, 1^st petitioner cannot disown the contents of the report merely because the same went against him. 11. The undisputed facts of the case are that 1^st petitioner initially claimed disability type of low vision with 50% visual

¶65

HCJ & CGR, J W.P. No.31035 of 2025

¶66

¶67

impairment, he was assessed and issued certificate dated 30.09.2025 by Medical Assessment Board, Goa Medical College, which is one of enlisted medical assessment boards in terms of NMC guidelines. Based on the same, provisional allotment letter dated 23.10.2025 was issued, allotting seat in favour of 1^st petitioner in OBC-PwBD All India quota at 1^st respondent college. When 1^st petitioner reported for admission and verification of documents, 1^st respondent subjected 1^st petitioner once again for medical test. As per the medical assessment, the remarks offered are as under:

¶68

“Candidate has secured admission under PwBD Category. Our assessment does not reveal any visual or any other disability as mentioned in the UDID. The candidate is medically fit to pursue the MBBC Course but not qualify for this MBBS seat under PwBD Category.”

¶69

12. Therefore, the seat allotted to 1^st petitioner was cancelled by impugned proceedings. When this Court was confronted with two medical assessments, as this Court is not an expert body to take any view on the same, with consent of petitioners, 1^st petitioner was referred to an independent medical board for further medical assessment. The Medical Board at Madras Medical College, after having assessed the petitioner, opined that he was not eligible for

¶70

HCJ & CGR, J W.P. No.31035 of 2025

¶71

¶72

MBBS course under PwBD quota, since he did not possess the benchmark disability. The medical terminology was further decoded by the Department of Ophthalmology at 1^st respondent. Though petitioners tried to dispute the same, no explanation whatsoever has been offered to discard the third report.

¶73

13. The basis for granting admission in favour of 1^st petitioner was that he possessed benchmark disability of 50% low vision, being eligible for reservation under PwBD quota. In view of the third report, the claim of petitioners pales into insignificance, thus, becoming ineligible to claim any reservation under PwBD quota. Insofar as the contention that 1^st respondent is not empowered to examine and subject 1^st petitioner to medical assessment at the time of verification of documents, we are afraid that there is no such hard and fast rule.

¶74

14. In the given facts and circumstances, if there is any doubt with regard to the genuineness or otherwise of the certificates produced, it is always open to the institution admitting the students to verify the same, which even includes subjecting candidate to re-examination. We are not oblivious of the fact that 1^st petitioner was granted admission by virtue of interim orders and that he continued to pursue the course, however, as the very same order

¶75

HCJ & CGR, J W.P. No.31035 of 2025

¶76

¶77

clearly stipulated that the admission so granted would be subject to result in the main writ petition and that 1^st petitioner would not claim any equities, we have no other option than confirming the seat cancellation letter.

¶78

15. This writ petition, therefore, lacks any merit and accordingly the same is dismissed. No costs.

¶79

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed.

¶80

LISA GILL, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J

¶81

Orsu Sri Harshith v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences (Aiims)

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Orsu Sri Harshith v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences (Aiims)

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases