Medical boards cannot act as parallel authorities to CMOs on disability certificates: Allahabad High Court

Medical boards cannot act as parallel authorities to CMOs on disability certificates: Allahabad High Court

Prayagraj: Granting relief to a NEET-UG 2026 aspirant seeking reservation under the persons with disabilities (PwD) category, the Allahabad High Court ruled in favor of a candidate holding a 55% permanent disability certificate. Although the evaluating medical board—and subsequently the appellate authority—had downgraded the candidate's disability to 20% and classified it as temporary, the Court allowed the candidate to claim a seat in the disabled category, noting that the original certificate had never been legally challenged.

Hearing Writ-C No. 36084 of 2026 on September 10, a division bench comprising Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Satya Vir Singh addressed the matter. The petitioner held a permanent disability certificate, issued on June 30, 2025, which certified a 55% disability related to mental illness.

To claim PwD reservation for NEET-UG 2026, the candidate was required to obtain an eligibility certificate from a designated medical board. While the board declared the petitioner capable of pursuing medical studies, it assessed the disability at only 20% and labeled it temporary. Upon appeal, the appellate authority upheld the medical board's downgraded assessment.

Representing the petitioner, Advocate Abhishek Shukla argued that his client’s existing 55% disability certificate is permanent and legally binding. Seeking relief, he cited the High Court's August 25, 2026, ruling in Somya Pal vs. Union of India.

Shukla contended that this precedent establishes that no other medical institution can operate as a parallel authority to the entity authorized to issue the original disability certificate, nor can it independently determine the certificate's validity. While the evaluating medical board has the jurisdiction to assess a candidate’s fitness for a specific medical course, it cannot exercise jurisdiction parallel to the original certificate. He argued that the validity of the original certificate is a separate legal issue, and the evaluating board cannot bypass it simply by issuing a contradictory certificate of its own.

The High Court observed that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, provides a specific statutory framework for issuing disability certificates and filing appeals against them. The bench noted a recurring pattern where candidates possessed valid certificates indicating a disability of over 40%, yet the medical board—while issuing the eligibility certificate—inexplicably reduced the disability percentage below the required benchmark.

The Court remarked that declaring a candidate capable of studying in these instances seemed arbitrarily tied to a lowered assessment of their disability. Emphasizing that the original certificates issued under the Act were never formally challenged in these cases, the Court used this rationale to grant relief to the affected candidates.

Applying this to the present case, the Court held the petitioner’s original certificate to be valid and directed that the petitioner be granted relief in line with the Somya Pal judgment. The Court ordered that the candidate be allowed to claim a seat in the PwD category based on their original medical certificate.

Furthermore, the Court emphasized the urgent need to scrutinize the broader process of issuing disability certificates. Pointing out that vastly contradictory assessments from two different authorities clearly indicate an erroneous evaluation by one of them, the bench called for a competent authority to review the system.

During the hearing, the counseling authority informed the Court that the first round of counseling had already concluded. Despite this, the High Court granted the requested relief. Disposing of the petition, the Court directed the relevant authorities to take immediate action based on the official order made available on the website.