Dhiraj Singh Thakur, CJ (oral):

1. The petitioners sought consideration under PwBD category for admission in Post Graduate courses for the Session 2025-26.

2. The petitioner in WP.No.32530 of 2025 was got examined by a Medical Board constituted by Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences which found him to be suffering 50% disability and found eligible for admission for the courses in Psychiatry, Radiotherapy, Biochemistry, SPM, Hospital Administration, Microbiology, Pharmacology and Physiology only.

The petitioner, however, is inclined to be considered for courses in Radio Diagnosis, Dermatology and General Medicine.

3. The petitioner in WP.No.32539 of 2025 was also got examined by the Medical Board constituted by Dr NTR University which found him to be eligible for admission for the courses in DVL, Family Medicine, Nuclear Medicine, Psychiatry, Radiotherapy, SPM, Hospital Administration, Microbiology, Pharmacology and Physiology.

                  The petitioner, however, is inclined to be considered for the course in Pathology also.

4. The petitioners question the medical report issued by the Medical Board of Dr NTR University and the stand taken was that the same be not acted upon at all inasmuch as the said Medical Board was not constituted in terms of the NMC guidelines.

5. It is not out of place here to mention that as many as 33 Medical Boards have been constituted throughout the country which have been entrusted with the job of issuing certificates upon examination of candidates.

6. Mr. Vivek Chandrasekhar S, learned counsel appearing for NMC, states that the 33 Medical Boards have been constituted only in regard to 15% seats reserved for candidates applying under the All India Quota and further that the States are under an obligation to constitute the Medical Boards for examining the candidates suffering from benchmark disabilities.

7. Admittedly, no Medical Board has been constituted by the State in the State of Andhra Pradesh and it is in that perspective that Dr NTR University has constituted a Medical Board which consists of the following medical professionals.

                  1. Dr. U. Aruna Kumari, Prof. & HoD of Neurology, SMC, Vijayawada.

                  2. Dr. I. Babji Syam Kumar, Prof. & HoD of Neuro Surgery, SMC, Vijayawada.

                  3. Dr. K. Ravi, Prof. & HoD of ENT, SMC, Vijayawada

                  4. Dr. A. Srinivasa Rao, Prof. of Orthopaedics, SMC, Vijayawada

                  5. Dr. D. Sudheer Babu, Prof. of General Medicine, SMC, Vijayawada

                  6. Dr. B. Kiran Kumar, Asst. Professor, PMR Department, AIIMs, Mangalagiri.

8. On the previous date of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners had emphasized that the Apex Court in Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. Union of India and others [2024 INSC 775] had mandated that the Disability Assessment Boards had to assess the candidates and record positively whether the disability of the candidate would or would not come in the way of the candidate pursuing the courses in question. The Disability Assessment Boards were also required to state reasons in the event of the Disability Assessment Board concluding that the candidate was not eligible for pursuing the course.

9. Since the Medical Board constituted by Dr. NTR University in its earlier medical examination had not specifically given any reason as to why the petitioners were found unfit and ineligible for undergoing courses of Radio Diagnosis, Dermatology & General Medicine (in WP.No.32530 of 2025) and Pathology (in WP.No.32539 of 2025), while holding them to be considered for the courses of Psychiatry, Radiotherapy, Biochemistry among five others (in respect of the petitioner in WP.No.32530 of 2025) and DVL, Family Medicine, Nuclear Medicine among seven others (in respect of the petitioner in WP.No.32539 of 2025), this Court by order, dated 24.11.2025, directed the Medical Board constituted by Dr. NTR University to again examine the petitioners and record specific reasons why the petitioners were not eligible for some of the courses.

10. The petitioners have yet again been examined by the Medical Board with the same constitution as supra. Detail reasons have been given.

11. Since the petitioner in WP.No.32530 of 2025 is interested to undergo the courses of Radio Diagnosis, Dermatology and General Medicine, reasons have been given by the Medical Board as to why the petitioner was ineligible.

12. In the Medical Board’s latest report, dated 25.11.2025, insofar as the discipline of Dermatology (DVL) is concerned, it is stated that the petitioner was held ineligible on account of the various functions which a medical professional is otherwise required to perform in the field of Dermatology.

                  For example, he should be able to give incisions, take stitches and sutures. He should also be trained in taking skin biopsy and nail biopsy. He should be able to perform chemical peels, manual dermabrasion, skin punch grafting and wound dressing independently. He should also be able to perform cryosurgery, nail surgery and acne surgery besides being able to perform chemical cauterization, cryotherapy, patch and photopatch test, slit smears and tissue smears etcetera.

                  Insofar as Radio Diagnosis is concerned, the Board records that the candidate is required to insert catheter, help in angiographic procedures both diagnosis and interventional. In interventional radiology, a student is required to be able to perform simple, common non-vascular procedures under ultrasound and fluoroscopy guidance. For example, abscess drainage, drainage catheter placement, nephrostomy, biliary drainage etc.,

                  Insofar as General Medicine is concerned, it is recorded that a candidate is required to use a defibrillator and endotracheal intubation in regard to critically ill persons, besides having procedural skills like taking kidney biopsy, liver biopsy, fine needle aspiration cytology from palpable humps, aspiration of liver abscess, bone narrow aspiration and biopsy, arterial puncture for ABG, lumbar puncture, pleural tap and further should be able to provide efficiently basic life support and advanced life support.

13. It is in that backdrop that the Medical Board held by way of a speaking order that while keeping in mind the principles of reasonable accommodation while the petitioner in WP.No.32530 of 2025 was held ineligible to undergo the courses of Radio Diagnosis, Dermatology and General Medicine, the petitioner could be considered for admission in eight other disciplines.

14. Insofar as the petitioner in WP.No.32539 of 2025 is concerned, the Board held that the petitioner was ineligible to undergo the course in Pathology on account of the nature and extent of the candidate’s disability resulting in functional limitations which materially interfere with the essential clinical competencies required in the field of Pathology. It is further stated that the candidate is unable to safely and effectively perform core academic and clinical tasks such as handling of emergency situations and performance of mandatory procedures. However, it was held that the petitioner could be considered for admission in ten other disciplines.

15. Although an argument has been addressed that in terms of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Om Rathod v. The Director General of Health Services [2024 INSC 836] the Apex Court directed that the directions given by the Director General of Health Services dated 24.03.2022 be followed and that the Medical Board should include a Doctor or Health Professional with disability, yet, we notice that none of the 33 Medical Boards constituted by the Medical Counseling Committee contain any such Doctor or Medical Professional much less was any such medical professional or Doctor included in the Medical Board constituted by Dr. NTR University.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioners would, therefore, contend that since there was no Doctor or Medical Professional with disability included in the Medical Board constituted by Dr. NTR University, the same ought not to be relied upon at all and that the certificate obtained by the petitioners from one of the Medical Boards out of the 33 constituted for filling up the 15% All India Quota which held the petitioners eligible be considered for issuing directions for consideration to Dr. NTR University.

17. We, however, cannot accept this argument at this stage inasmuch as even the said Medical Board did not have any Doctor or Medical Professional who can be said to be suffering from any disability and, therefore, that argument would not, in our opinion, be of any help to the petitioners insofar as that relief is concerned.

18. Since the directions given in Om Rathod’s case (supra) with regard to constitution of the Medical Board to the extent it also envisaged inclusion of a Medical Professional or a Doctor with some disability is concerned, Dr. NTR University would be obliged to follow the same and to include such a Doctor/Medical Professional and reexamine the petitioners and based upon the said report, consider the petitioners for admission to the courses to which they are found eligible to seek consideration.

19. According to learned counsel appearing for Dr. NTR University, Mrs. T V Sridevi, the petitioners could be examined within one week.

20. Be that as it may, based upon the examination, the Medical Board shall pass a speaking order whereafter it will be open to the petitioners to work out their remedies.

21. We, however, do not find this a fit case for grant of any interim directions in favour of the petitioners and against the official respondents to consider the petitioners for admission in any of the courses which they are seeking consideration i.e., Radio Diagnosis, Dermatology and General Medical (in respect of the petitioner in WP.No.32530 of 2025) and Pathology (in respect of the petitioner in WP.No.32539 of 2025).

22. The Writ Petitions are, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs.

                  Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.