The Delhi High Court on Tuesday asked the Centre to take a policy decision on a representation to fill up the vacant seats reserved in medical colleges for those suffering from benchmark disability by taking in candidates who fall short of the threshold but are persons with disabilities (PWD).
A bench headed by Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma also asked the Centre to respond to a petition filed by an MBBS aspirant having less than benchmark disability who sought admission in a medical college against one of the unfilled seats reserved for PWD.
The petitioner, who has a permanent locomotor disability, scored 96.06 percentile in NEET-UG 2022 and was found to be short of the 40 per cent threshold prescribed for a benchmark disability a precondition for claiming reservation in education.
The petitioner said it will be unfair to grant a seat earmarked for candidates with benchmark disabilities to a candidate without any disability by converting them into general category seats.
UOI (Centre) will certainly look into the representation by the petitioner and shall be free to take a policy decision, said the bench, also comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad.
The court asked the centre to state its stand on the representation while filing its reply.
It also sought the response of the National Testing Agency and National Medical Commission to the plea.
The court said it was a genuine petition and took on record its appreciation for the petitioner's counsel Rahul Bajaj, who is visually challenged, and asked its registry to provide documents to the lawyer in a format accessible to him.
Registry of this court is directed to furnish copies of all documents in accessible format to the counsel for the petitioner for enabling him to go through them and argue the matter, the court ordered.
Besides seeking allotment of a seat to her under the PWD category in the NEET-UG 2022, the petitioner assailed legal provisions restricting the benefit of reservation to persons with benchmark disabilities alone.
The petitioner said a cut-off must not be arbitrarily determined and enforced in a way that leaves candidates who do not meet the cut-off completely high and dry, especially in favour of candidates with no disability at all.
The matter will be heard next on April 13.
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
You’ve hit your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Quarterly Starter
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Access to Exclusive Premium Stories Online
Over 30 behind the paywall stories daily, handpicked by our editors for subscribers


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app