Madras High Court Directs Authorities To Permit PwD Candidate In NEET PG 2025–26 Counselling Based On 2024 Rank Under Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act and PGMER 2023
Isabella Mariam
The Madras High Court Single Bench of Justice C. Kumarappan directed the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, the Office of Medical Counselling Committee, the National Medical Commission, and the Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital to permit a physically disabled candidate to attend counselling for NEET PG 2025–2026 based on the rank secured by him in NEET PG 2024. The Court issued the direction after examining the petitioner’s challenge to a disability certificate that had declared him ineligible for postgraduate medical education. The Court recorded that while the candidate was unfit for certain specialties, his functional disability did not prevent him from pursuing other postgraduate courses and ordered that he be allowed to participate in the upcoming counselling process.
The petitioner, Dr. Tarigonda Surya Maheedhar, obtained his MBBS degree from Hebei Medical University, China, on 1 July 2019. He subsequently cleared the Foreign Medical Graduate Examination in 2020 and was granted medical registration by the Andhra Pradesh Medical Council on 27 October 2020. On 10 July 2021, he suffered an accident leading to the amputation of his left arm above the elbow.
In 2024, he appeared for the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) for postgraduate medical education and secured a percentile score of 76.8745884 with an All India Rank of 50,084. He applied for the benefit of five percent reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities as provided under Section 32(1) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
On 18 September 2024, the Regional Medical Board of Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Chennai, issued a disability certificate declaring him 90 percent disabled and functionally unfit for postgraduate studies. The petitioner challenged this assessment, contending that it relied solely on quantification rather than a pragmatic evaluation of functional competency.
During the pendency of proceedings, this Court issued an interim order permitting him to participate in the NEET PG 2024 counselling process. He was provisionally allotted an MD Microbiology seat at Andhra Medical University. The Court simultaneously directed his reassessment at the Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Puducherry, in accordance with precedents requiring functional evaluation rather than mechanical reliance on disability percentage.
On 4 June 2025, JIPMER issued a report stating that although the petitioner might not be able to effectively pursue MD Microbiology, he was capable of studying Psychiatry and several other allied disciplines, including Radiation Oncology, Preventive and Social Medicine, Hospital Administration, Health Administration, Public Health, Pharmacology, and Biochemistry.
The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Kabir Paharia v. National Medical Commission and Others (2025 SCC Online SC 1025) to argue that exclusion based on erroneous disability assessment violated constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination. The respondents, represented by the Union of India, Medical Counselling Committee, and National Medical Commission, opposed the petition. They argued that the certificate was consistent with the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023, and that seat allotments could not be carried forward on the basis of previous year’s NEET results.
Justice C. Kumarappan recorded that the disability certificate of 18 September 2024 stated: “LEFT SHOULDER DISARTICULATION DUE TO POST BURN SEQUELAE. THERE IS LOSS OF LEFT UPPER LIMB AT SHOULDER JOINT LEVEL INDEED PERCENTAGE IS MORE THAN 90 PERCENTAGE. HENCE CANDIDATE IS NOT FULFILLING ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR NEET PG PWD RESERVATION.”
The Court noted that the Regional Medical Board had not examined the petitioner’s functional capacity. Referring to the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023, the Court observed: “Persons with more than 80% disability may also be allowed on case to case basis and their functional competency will be determined with the aid of assistive devices if it is being used, to see if it is brought below 80% and whether they possess sufficient motor ability as required to pursue and complete the course satisfactorily.”
The Court further extracted from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Omkar Ramachandra Gond v. Union of India (2024 SCC Online SC 2860): “The Disability Assessment Boards assessing the candidates should positively record whether the disability of the candidate will or will not come in the way of the candidate pursuing the course in question. The Disability Assessment Boards should state reasons in the event of concluding that candidate is not eligible for pursuing the course.”
In reference to Kabir Paharia v. National Medical Commission (2025 SCC Online SC 1025), the Court highlighted: “The denial of admission to the appellant… was grossly illegal, arbitrary and violative of the appellant’s fundamental rights… The constitutional mandate of substantive equality demands that person with disabilities… be afforded reasonable accommodations rather than subjected to exclusionary practices based on unfounded presumptions about their capabilities.”
The JIPMER reassessment dated 4 June 2025 was also recorded, stating that: “The petitioner would not have much difficulty in pursuing Postgraduate Degree or Diploma courses and could be substantially productive in practicing the following subjects: Psychiatry; Radiation Oncology, Radiotherapy, Palliative Medicine and Radiation Medicine; Preventive and Social Medicine; Hospital Administration; Health Administration; Public Health; Pharmacology; Biochemistry.”
The Court observed that while the petitioner could not effectively continue in MD Microbiology, he remained eligible for admission in multiple other specialties where his disability would not impede his functional capacity.
The Court stated: “This Court would like to give a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the upcoming NEET PG 2025-2026 counselling, for the admission in the above eight postgraduate courses, based upon the NEET rank secured by the petitioner in NEET PG 2024.”
It was clarified that the courses included Psychiatry, Radiation Oncology, Preventive and Social Medicine, Hospital Administration, Health Administration, Public Health, Pharmacology, and Biochemistry. The Court further recorded that the writ petition stood disposed of, with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sriram Venkatavardan, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. R. Rajesh Vivekananthan, Deputy Solicitor General of India; Ms. Shubharanjani Ananth, Standing Counsel; Mr. K. Tippu Sultan, Government Advocate; Mr. M.T. Arunan for JIPMER
Case Title: Tarigonda Surya Maheedhar v. Union of India & Others
Case Number: W.P No. 5209 of 2025
Bench: Justice C. Kumarappan
