Bombay High Court
MOHAMMAD SAMEER MOHAMMAD SHOEB MAPARAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. ITS DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION AND DRUGS DEP. AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court held that the expert decisions of the Medical Assessment Board and Appellate Board are final and cannot be set aside, and that reasonable accommodation does not apply to undergraduate MBBS admission in this case.
Summary
The petitioner, Mohammad Sameer Mohammad Shoeb Mapara, applied for admission to the MBBS course under the OBC and PwD categories in NEET UG 2026 and was declared ineligible by a Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Assessment Board and confirmed by the Appellate Board. He challenged these certificates, arguing that the Boards failed to comply with the National Medical Commission's Guidelines on Assessment of Persons with Benchmark Disabilities, specifically the requirements for a speaking, reasoned order and assessment of functional competency. The petitioner also highlighted his limited vision loss (homonymous hemianopia) and a driving licence as evidence of sufficient visual capability. The respondents contended that the Boards' expert decisions were final and should not be questioned by the court. The High Court held that the Boards' decisions were proper, that their expert medical assessments were final under the SOP, and that reasonable accommodation applicable to postgraduate courses does not extend to undergraduate medical admission, thereby dismissing the petition.
Issues considered
- The validity of the Disability Certificates issued by the Medical Assessment Board and Appellate Board under the NMC Guidelines.
- Whether the Boards complied with the requirement of a speaking, reasoned order as per Guidelines clauses 3.23 and 3.24.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to reasonable accommodation for undergraduate medical admission under PwD provisions.
- Whether the High Court can review the expert medical determinations of the Boards.
Subjects
- Persons with Disabilities
- NEET UG
- Eligibility Certificate
- Medical Assessment Board
- Appellate Board
- Reasoned order
- Reasonable accommodation
- Undergraduate medical admission
Judgment
903-WP-12696-26.doc
Sharayu Khot.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 12696 OF 2026
Mohammad Sameer Mohammad Shoeb
Mapara …Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. …Respondents
----------
Ms. Pooja Thorat a/w Mr. Anukul Seth and Mr. Amar Bodke for the
Petitioner.
Mr. P.P. Kakade, Addl. GP a/w Ms. Vaishali Nimbalkar, AGP for the
Respondent No. 1 and 5 – State.
Dr. Dhruti Kapadia a/w Ms. Kavita Dhanuka for the Respondent –
CET Cell.
Dr. Mrunall Borrse, Assistant Prof, J.J.H.
----------
CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA J
FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J
DATE : 24 September 2026
ORDER :
SHARAYU
PANDURANG
KHOT
1. By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has sought for
Digitally
signed by
SHARAYU
quashing and setting aside of the Eligibility Certificate dated 27th
PANDURANG
KHOT
Date:
2026.09.28
19:23:22
+0530
August 2026 issued by Respondent No. 4, Appellate Board and
Eligibility Certificate dated 17th August 2026 issued by Respondent
1/10
903-WP-12696-26.doc
No. 5 - Medical Assessment Board (hereinafter referred to as
“impugned Disability Certificate”) with further direction that the
Petitioner be considered as eligible for admission to MBBS course
under the PwD category.
2. The Petitioner applied and registered himself for
appearing for NEET UG 2026 under OBC and PwD category on 21st
February 2026. The NEET UG 2026 examination was conducted by
National Testing Agency on 21st June 2026.
3. The Petitioner had scored 291/720 with 68.26 percentile
in the NEET UG 2026 examination and which results were declared
on 16th July 2026.
4. A Notification dated 7th August 2026 was issued
whereby 65 hospitals have been designated and notified as the
Medical Assessment Board for examining students under PwD
category and five hospitals as Appellate Boards.
5. The impugned Disability Certificate was issued by
Respondent No. 5 - Medical Assessment Board on 17th August 2026,
2/10
903-WP-12696-26.doc
whereby the Petitioner was classified as ineligible to pursue the
MBBS course.
6. The impugned Disability Certificate was issued by
Respondent No. 4 - Appellate Board on 27th August 2026 confirming
the findings of the Respondent No. 5 - Medical Assessment Board.
7. The Petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned
Disability Certificates has filed the present Petition.
8. Ms. Thorat, the learned Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner, has submitted that the impugned Disability Certificates
issued by the Medical Assessment Board and the Appellate Board
have not complied with the Guidelines on Assessment of Persons with
Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) for admission to the MBBS Course,
2026, issued by the National Medical Commission (Under Graduate
Medical Education Board) on 21st July 2026 (hereinafter referred to
as “the said Guidelines”). She has in particular referred to clauses
3.23 and 3.24 of the said Guidelines, which provides for a speaking
order in context of the Eligibility / Disability Certificate to be issued
by the Medical Assessment Board and which shall be a written order
3/10
903-WP-12696-26.doc
containing reasons, findings and conclusions of the Medical
Assessment Board in support of its decision. Clause 3.24 provides for
a reasoned decision, which means a decision supported by objective
findings, functional assessment and reasons recorded in writing. She
has submitted that the impugned Disability Certificates, which have
been issued by the Medical Assessment Board and Appellate Board
are not in compliance with the said clauses 3.23 and 3.24 of the said
Guidelines.
9. Ms. Thorat has further submitted that the Petitioner is
having disability, which is mentioned in the impugned Disability
Certificates as “homonymous Hemianopia”. This has been defined as
per Cleveland Clinic in their website, an extract of which is tendered
and taken on record and marked “X” for identification as a symptom
that makes a person see only on one side - right or left of the visual
field of each of the person's eyes. This has also been defined as ‘half
vision loss’. She has submitted that this only means 20 degree vision
loss, which fact was required to be taken into consideration whilst
arriving at the findings in the impugned Disability Certificates of the
ineligibility of the Petitioner to pursue medical education. She has
also placed reliance upon clause 3.9 of the said Guidelines, which
4/10
903-WP-12696-26.doc
provides for functional competency which means the demonstrated
ability of a candidate, with or without reasonable accommodation or
assistive technology, to acquire and perform the essential
competencies required under the Competency Based Medical
Education Curriculum. She has submitted that such functional
competency of the Petitioner as per the Competency Based Medical
Education Curriculum has not have been assessed by the Respondent
Nos. 4 and 5 as borne out from the impugned Disability Certificates.
10. Ms. Thorat has further submitted that the Final Decision
of the Appellate Board is provided in Step 5 of the Standard
Operating Procedure (SOP) for appeal by NEET PwD candidates
appearing before the Appellate Disability Assessment Board. This
provides that upon completion of assessment and review of all
relevant records, the Appellate Disability Assessment Board shall
record its final decision regarding the candidate's disability status
with a speaking order, percentage of disability and eligibility under
the PwBD category for NEET Counseling. The impugned Disability
Certificate issued by the Appellate Disability Assessment Board fails
to comply with the SOP. She has submitted that the impugned
Disability Certificate issued by the Appellate Board does not comply
5/10
903-WP-12696-26.doc
with the format set out in Schedule II under clause 12.6 of the said
Guidelines in that the Appellate Board has added ineligibility for
pursuing medical education which is not there in the format.
11. Ms. Thorat has also brought to the notice of this Court
that the Petitioner has been issued a driving license (annexed at
Exh.D to the Petition) and submits that this could only have been
issued upon the Petitioner satisfying the vision criteria for driving a
vehicle.
12. Ms. Thorat has accordingly submitted that in view of the
impugned Disability Certificates failing to comply with the said
Guidelines, the Disability Certificates are required to be set aside and
it is to be directed that the Petitioner is eligible for admission to
MBBS course under the PwBD category. She has also submitted that
the Supreme Court has extended reasonable accommodation to PwD
candidates insofar as medical admission is concerned.
13. Mr. Kakade, learned Additional GP, appearing for the
Respondent-State and Dr. Dhruti Kapadia, learned Counsel appearing
for Respondent No. 3 - State CET Cell, have vehemently opposed this
6/10
903-WP-12696-26.doc
Petition.
14. They have submitted that the impugned Disability
Certificates have been issued by two Authorities, viz., Respondent
No.5 - Medical Assessment Board and Respondent No. 4 - the
Appellate Board. They have submitted that the impugned Disability
Certificates ought not to be questioned by this Court, particularly
where reasoned decisions have been taken by the two Authorities
insofar as the Petitioner being ineligible for pursuing medical
education.
15. Further submission is made that this Court has in a series
of Petitions taken a view that in the event, the Medical Assessment
Board has arrived at a finding which disentitles the candidate from
pursuing education, the finding has to be given due regard to and
acted upon. They have submitted that in view of the finding of the
two Authorities, viz. Medical Assessment Board and Appellate Board,
that the Petitioner in the present case is ineligible for pursuing
medical education, this Court is required to have due regard to the
same and accordingly dismiss the present Petition.
7/10
903-WP-12696-26.doc
16. Having considered these submissions and perusing the
said Guidelines, we are of the view that there is no infirmity in the
impugned Disability Certificates issued by the two Authorities, viz.
the Medical Assessment Board and the Appellate Board. The
Petitioner has by filing the present Petition sought for this Court to
question the Disability Certificates issued by the said two Authorities,
on the ground of not properly evaluating the Petitioner's disability.
17. We do not consider it appropriate to question the
Disability Certificates, which have been given by experts in the field,
viz. five medical doctors in the Disability Certificate issued by the
Medical Assessment Board and three medical doctors in the Disability
Certificate issued by the Appellate Disability Assessment Board.
18. It is provided in Step 5 of the SOP issued for Appeal by
NEET-PwBD candidates appearing before the Appellate Disability
Assessment Board that the decision taken by the Appellate Board will
stand final. The Appellate Disability Assessment Board having
recorded its final decision that the Petitioner is ineligible for pursuing
medical education, such decision cannot be questioned by this Court.
8/10
903-WP-12696-26.doc
19. We do not find any merit in the submission of Ms. Thorat
that reasonable accommodation is required to be given to the
Petitioner in that the Petitioner is only suffering from 20 degree
vision loss and that due regard should be had to functional
competency in that context.
20. The reliance placed by Ms. Thorat on the said Guidelines
in that context, including the Competency Based Medical Education
Curriculum, is in our view misplaced, particularly, in view of the
medical assessment of the Petitioner having been done by the said
two Authorities, who have found upon such assessment, the
Petitioner to be ineligible for pursuing medical education.
21. The further submission made by Ms. Thorat as regards
the addition to the format as prescribed for the Disability Certificate
to be issued by the Appellate Medical PwBD Assessment Board is in
our view also misconceived, in view of the Appellate Medical PwBD
Assessment Board having discretion to add in its Final Decision, viz.
the Petitioner is ineligible for pursuing medical education. Further,
the online format cannot be sacrosanct and the Appellate Board
always has the power to add to their decision in the circumstances of
9/10
903-WP-12696-26.doc
the case before them.
22. The Supreme Court, in cases concerning Persons with
Disability (PwD), has held that reasonable accommodation is
required to be given in matters concerning post graduate courses, but
the same yardstick cannot be applied to under graduate courses,
particularly, where two Authorities, viz. the Medical Assessment
Board and the Appellate Board, have found the candidate to be
ineligible for pursuing medical education. Thus, reasonable
accommodation of PwD is not applicable in the present case.
23. In that view of the matter, we find no merit in the
present Petition, and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
[FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [R.I. CHAGLA J.]
10/10
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.