The Patna High Court has held that a NEET candidate cannot be made to suffer for a discrepancy in his disability certificate caused by a software error attributable to the authorities. Justice Harish Kumar set aside the cancellation of the petitioner’s provisional MBBS admission and directed the authorities to admit him against an appropriate disability-category seat for the 2025-26 academic session.
The petitioner, a NEET-UG 2025 aspirant, had been allotted Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital, Laheriasarai, under the UGMAC-2025 counselling process. He had secured an All India Rank of 70,0126 under the OBC category, a category rank of 31,652 and a disability rank of 1,443. His provisional admission was accepted after he produced a disability certificate issued by KGMU, Lucknow.
The admission was subsequently cancelled after verification raised a discrepancy in the disability certificate. The petitioner challenged the cancellation, arguing that the discrepancy was caused by a software-generated error and was beyond his control. He had also obtained a fresh examination from AIIMS, Patna and sought reconsideration of his admission.
The High Court found that KGMU, the institution that had issued the certificate, had subsequently confirmed its genuineness. KGMU clarified that the name of Dr. B.K. Ojha had appeared against the column for the Designated Disability Certification Centre because of an error in the portal, and that the error had subsequently been rectified.
The Court also noted that the petitioner had undergone the required disability examination at IGIMS, Patna. However, the IGIMS report itself recorded that functional competency with the aid of assistive devices could not be assessed because the requisite software was unavailable. The Court held that the petitioner could not be made to suffer because of deficiencies in the software, infrastructure or technical facilities of the institution entrusted with his assessment.
The Bench further observed that once KGMU had verified the certificate and explained the discrepancy, there was no justification for cancelling the petitioner’s provisional admission. If the authorities still considered further verification necessary, they could have directed another examination by a duly authorised institution or sought clarification from the Board or the National Medical Commission.
Invoking the principle that no person can take undue advantage of their own wrong, the Court held that the petitioner was not at fault at any stage and could not be made to bear the consequences of circumstances attributable to the authorities and the technical systems used by the concerned institutions.
The Court also took note of the fact that three seats under the disability category were still vacant. It therefore set aside the November 25, 2025 communication and December 17, 2025 order cancelling the petitioner’s provisional admission, and directed the respondents to admit him against an appropriate disability-category seat for the 2025-26 academic session, subject to completion of formalities and payment of prescribed fees.
Since the petitioner had been prevented from attending classes because of the cancellation, the Court further directed that he be permitted to join classes with the next available batch and that appropriate academic arrangements be made to ensure that he does not suffer any further loss of his academic year. The authorities were also directed to facilitate completion of his academic requirements and examinations while safeguarding his academic progression.
The writ petition was accordingly allowed.
