Madras High Court Allows Differently-Abled Doctor to Participate in NEET PG 2025-26 Counselling Based on NEET PG 2024 Rank
The Court ruled that, under the peculiar circumstances, the petitioner must be permitted to participate in NEET PG 2025-26 counselling for eight designated postgraduate courses, according to his NEET PG 2024 rank.
Justice C. Kumarappan, Madras High Court
The Madras High Court directed authorities to allow a differently abled doctor to participate in the NEET PG 2025-26 counselling for eight specific postgraduate medical courses based on his NEET PG 2024 rank.
A Single Judge Bench comprising Justice C. Kumarappan, while delivering the judgment, observed: "The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that the constitutional mandate of substantive equality demands that person with disabilities and PwBD be afforded reasonable accommodations rather than subjected to exclusionary practices based on unfounded presumptions about their capabilities."
Senior Advocate Sriram Venkatavardan represented the petitioner, while R.Rajesh Vivekananthan, Deputy Solicitor General of India, appeared for the respondents.
Background
The petitioner, a qualified MBBS doctor, suffered an above elbow amputation resulting in a 90% disability. Although his NEET PG 2024 rank qualified him for admission, authorities deemed him functionally unfit for all courses under the disability quota.
Pursuant to a court order, the petitioner was reassessed by a competent body at JIPMER, which found him fit for eight specific postgraduate courses where he could be "substantially productive".
Accordingly, the petitioner approached the Madras High Court seeking appropriate relief.
Court’s Observations
Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Kabir Paharia v. National Medical Commission, the Madras High Court directed the authorities to allow the petitioner to participate in the NEET-PG 2025-2026 counselling.
In the Kabir Paharia case, the Supreme Court had ruled that the denial of admission to a candidate due to a wrong assessment of disability amounts to a violation of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, therefore directing the authorities to allot the candidate a seat in the forthcoming academic session without requiring him to reappear in NEET, noting that he had already secured eligible marks and the denial was solely due to the fault of the authorities.
Relying on the precedent, the Madras High Court concluded that "…in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, and relying upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kabir Paharia case cited supra, 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."
Conclusion
In view of the peculiar facts of the case and the principles laid down by the Apex Court, the High Court directed that the petitioner be permitted to participate in the NEET PG 2025-26 counselling for the eight identified postgraduate courses, based on his NEET PG 2024 rank.
The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, and connected applications closed.
Cause Title: Tarigonda Surya Maheedhar v. Union of India & Ors.
Appearances
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Sriram Venkatavardan
Respondents: Deputy Solicitor General R. Rajesh Vivekananthan, Standing Counsel Shubharanjani Ananth, Government Advocate K. Tippu Sultan, Advocate M. T. Arunan
