“No Reason to Reject the Request”: Andhra Pradesh High Court Orders Extended Exam Time for MBBS Student with Cerebral Palsy
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad allowed the writ petition filed by a medical student with benchmark disability of Cerebral Palsy, setting aside a memo that denied her additional compensatory time for second-year MBBS examinations. The Court directed the authorities to grant the petitioner 30 minutes of extra time in addition to the one hour already granted for every three-hour examination, not only for her second-year exams scheduled from April 7, 2025, but for all remaining MBBS examinations until the completion of her course.
The petitioner, a 22-year-old MBBS student at Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam, suffers from Cerebral Palsy, a benchmark disability under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (“RPwD Act”). A disability certificate (Ex.P.12) issued by a medical board categorized her condition as a physical locomotor/orthopedic disability affecting her bilateral lower limbs with impaired reach. The disability was attributed to a birth injury and assessed at 60%.
Initially, the petitioner was granted an additional 60 minutes for her three-hour examinations under applicable guidelines. However, she was unable to complete the papers within this four-hour duration and failed to clear the first-year MBBS examinations. Consequently, she approached the High Court in W.P. No. 8781 of 2023 seeking further accommodation. By order dated 29.02.2024, the Court directed the authorities to allow an additional 30 minutes, solely for the petitioner and limited to the first-year MBBS examinations. This extended duration enabled her to pass the exams.
For the second-year examinations scheduled to begin on April 7, 2025, the petitioner requested continuation of the same benefit. However, the university authorities rejected her request through Memo No. 1102/EIC/MBBS/2024 dated 16.01.2025, citing that the earlier order was a one-time relief and not a precedent. This prompted the petitioner to file the present writ petition seeking an extension of the same compensatory time for all subsequent MBBS examinations.
The petitioner argued that the denial of continued compensatory time violated Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution and was inconsistent with the RPwD Act, 2016. She relied on Section 2(y) of the Act which defines “reasonable accommodation” and the Office Memorandum dated 29.08.2018 issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. Additionally, the petitioner cited multiple Supreme Court decisions, including Vikash Kumar v. UPSC (2021), Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. Union of India (2018), and Avni Prakash v. National Testing Agency (2023), to support her claim for continued reasonable accommodations.
In response, Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences (Respondent No. 2) submitted a counter affidavit tracing various regulatory guidelines. It acknowledged the revised competency-based curriculum regulations by the National Medical Commission effective from 01.08.2023, which lowered the pass percentage from 50% to 40%.
The respondents contended that the earlier High Court order was confined to first-year examinations and not applicable to subsequent years. They also questioned the extent of the petitioner’s disability, stating that the medical certificate only indicated impairment in the lower limbs and not in the upper limbs, and therefore did not justify further accommodations.
To support this contention, the respondents referred to Ex.P.12 which was issued by a three-member medical board. They argued that the board’s findings did not indicate functional impairment in the upper limbs. Further, it was submitted that the petitioner retained capacity to perform activities involving fingers, lifting, bending, sitting, and standing. During the proceedings, the Court was informed that a typographical error in the qualifications of one board member incorrectly mentioned “DDDL” instead of “DDVL” (Diploma in Dermatology, Venereology and Leprosy).
In reply, counsel for the petitioner argued that the constitution of the medical board was deficient for evaluating a neurological disorder like Cerebral Palsy, as it lacked a neurologist. It was further submitted that the doctrine of “reasonable accommodation” under the RPwD Act does not require quantitative thresholds but must consider the actual functional limitations faced by individuals.
The petitioner placed reliance on various Supreme Court judgments to assert that inclusive education under Section 17 of the RPwD Act mandates the provision of extra time, scribes, and other accommodations to persons with disabilities, particularly those with benchmark disabilities. These judgments also stress that “reasonable accommodation” should not be denied merely because a disability does not meet conventional metrics or visibly affect upper limbs.
The Court recorded, “The success of the Writ Petitioner in the first year MBBS examinations after availing the compensatory time of 30 minutes made it evident that the extra 30 minutes was the one that made all the difference for the Writ Petitioner to succeed.”
It stated that, “Although it was stated by the learned Single Judge that it was not a binding precedent, the case of the Writ Petitioner is required to be assessed and evaluated based on the success in the first year MBBS examinations after availing the extra time.”
Referring to Guideline No.12 of the Office Memorandum dated 29.08.2018, the Court noted, “The minimum time is only prescribed in the said Guideline, whereas the maximum time is consciously not prescribed in the said Guideline.” It also reproduced the provision stating that all candidates with benchmark disabilities not availing a scribe should be allowed additional time of “minimum of one hour for examination of 3 hours duration.”
On the question of the medical board’s competence, the Court noted, “The Medical Board constituted for examining a person suffering from the disability of the ‘Cerebral Palsy’ is defective inasmuch as at least one Member of the Board ought to have been from the Department of Neurology.”
The Court held, “Doctors from the Departments of Ophthalmology and Dermatology are certainly not competent to evaluate the nature of disability of a person affected by ‘Cerebral Palsy’.” It found the assessment unreliable and insufficient to displace the petitioner’s claim of genuine need for continued compensatory time.
Citing the Supreme Court’s decisions in Vikash Kumar, Sunanda Bhandare Foundation, Avni Prakash, and Gulshan Kumar, the Court observed, “The judgments... constitute a beacon light that shows the direction in which, the executive should proceed in dealing with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in the future.”
The Court concluded, “In the above premise, the Writ Petition stands allowed.” It issued the following directives:
“The Respondents are directed to permit the Writ Petitioner by granting compensatory time of 30 minutes in addition to one hour for every three hours for the second year MBBS examinations as well as the other MBBS examinations until the Writ Petitioner completes her course.”
It further directed, “In view of the fact that the 2nd year MBBS examinations are scheduled to commence from 07.04.2025, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No.2 is directed to convey the gist of this Order to the Competent Authority forthwith for effective compliance.”
The Court disposed of all interlocutory applications in terms of the order and made no order as to costs.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Ms. Kota Krishna Deepthi, Learned Counsel appeared on behalf of Mr. Jada Sravan Kumar
For the Respondents: Sri P. Soma Raju, Assistant Government Pleader for Medical & Health; Smt. Tata Venkata Sridevi, Standing Counsel for Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences
Case Title: Jammula Nandasai Mithra v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 5316 of 2025
Bench: Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad
[Read/Download order]
