Siddharth Raj vs The State Of Bihar & Ors.

Date : 25-08-2026 Heard Mr. Samir Kumar, learned Advocate for the petitioner; Mr. Prasoon Sinha, learned Senior Advocate for the Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”); Mr. Lokesh Kumar, learned Advocate for the State; and Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned Advocate for the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna (hereinafter referred to as “IGIMS”).

The petitioner, an aspirant for admission pursuant to NEET-UG, 2025, secured All India Rank 70,0126 under the OBC category, with a category rank of 31,652. He is also a person with benchmark disability and secured the relevant disability rank of 1,443. Pursuant thereto, he was allotted Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital, Laheriasarai, in the Under Graduate Medical Admission Counselling (UGMAC)-2025 duly conducted by the Board. It would be worth noting here that as per NMC Guidelines on assessment methods for granting admission in MBBS course to PWBD candidate; the petitioner had submitted a certificate for NEET Admissions for Specially Abled Candidates duly issued by the King George’s Medical University.

As per the prospectus issued by the Board, it was mandatory for a candidate claiming benefit under the disability quota to obtain a disability certificate from one of the medical colleges/institutions empanelled for the said purpose and specified in Appendix-5 thereto. In respect of Locomotor/Visual/Hearing/Speech & Language disability, the prospectus specifically provided that the candidate was required to undergo the disability test and obtain the requisite certificate from IGIMS.

In terms of the aforesaid requirement, the petitioner submitted an application before the Medical Superintendent, IGIMS, and was duly examined by the competent medical authority. Thereafter, on 13.11.2025, a disability certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner by IGIMS.

The petitioner immediately reported to the allotted college and produced the disability certificate issued by IGIMS. On the basis thereof, his provisional admission was accepted. However, his claim under the disability quota was kept subject to further verification.

Subsequently, the petitioner came to learn that, upon verification of the disability certificate at the level of IGIMS, his admission to Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital, Laheriasarai, had been cancelled vide Memo No.8253 dated 25.11.2025 as contained in Annexure-P/7 to the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner approached the Board and sought permission to undergo a fresh medical examination before another recognized institution. The petitioner thereafter got himself examined by the doctors of AIIMS, Patna on 02.12.2025 and submitted the disability report.

Accordingly, a committee was constituted, and vide Memo No. 3 dated 17.12.2025, took notice of the recommendation of the Disability Medical Board and on supervision of the record as also the instruction laid down by the Board and MCC regarding Disability quota found as follows:-

The Principal, DMC, Laherisarai, was also directed/requested to have his disability certificate verified from King George's Medical University (KGMU), Lucknow, which is recognized by the National Medical Commission (NMC) for the said purpose.

Pursuant thereto, KGMU, Lucknow, vide Letter No. 46701 dated 22.12.2025 and further vide Memo No. 3667 dated 03.02.2026, clarified to the Principal, Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital, Laheriasarai, that the disability certificate in question had in fact been issued by the hospital itself on 29.09.2025. It was further clarified that, owing to an automatic display in the relevant column of the software, the name of Dr. B. K. Ojha appeared against the column meant for “Name of the Designated Disability Centre”, instead of the name of KGMU, Lucknow. The Designated Disability Centre, KGMU further verified the genuineness of the certificate and informed the college concerned accordingly.

Despite the aforesaid clarification and verification by KGMU, the authorities have not reconsidered the matter. Consequently, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking, inter alia, quashing of the order dated 17.12.2025 passed by the committee constituted by Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital, Laheriasarai, whereby his provisional admission was cancelled.

The impugned order dated 17.12.2025 was received by the petitioner on 25.12.2025, and the present writ petition was instituted on 13.01.2026.

Mr. Samir Kumar, learned Advocate for the petitioner, assailing the impugned order, submits that the discrepancy in the disability certificate arose solely on account of a software-related issue at IGIMS and was neither attributable to the petitioner nor within his control. According to him, the petitioner had complied with the requirements of the prospectus and had obtained the disability certificate from the institution specifically designated by the Board for the purpose.

It is further submitted that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for any technical or software-related deficiency attributable to the respondent authorities or the institution concerned. The respondents have neither relied upon any contrary medical opinion nor produced any material to establish that the petitioner does not suffer from the disability certified by the competent medical authority. On the contrary, the subsequent verification undertaken by KGMU, Lucknow, has confirmed the genuineness of the certificate as well as the disability of the petitioner.

Learned Advocate for the petitioner, therefore, submits that once the genuineness of the disability certificate has been duly verified and the petitioner's disability has been acknowledged by the competent authority, cancellation of his provisional admission merely on account of a discrepancy arising from the software-generated entry in the certificate is wholly arbitrary, unjustified and contrary to the material available on record.

On the other hand, Mr. Prasoon Sinha, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Board, submits that IGIMS, Patna, was the institution authorized to verify the genuineness and extent of the disability claimed by the petitioner. According to him, the petitioner was duly subjected to medical examination by the competent authority; however, the certificate produced by him did not conform to the requirements prescribed under the Gazette Notification dated 14.05.2019. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner's claim was placed before the duly constituted committee, which, upon consideration of the relevant materials, did not accept the claim of the petitioner, and consequently his provisional admission was cancelled.

Mr. Sinha, learned Senior Advocate, has further apprised the Court that, at present, three seats under the disability category are still lying vacant. In support thereof, he has referred to the information furnished by the Principal, Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital, Laheriasarai, vide Letter No. 5486 dated 24.08.2026, a copy whereof has been produced before this Court and is taken on record.

Learned Advocate appearing for IGIMS, however, has not disputed the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner that he was duly subjected to medical examination by IGIMS and pursuant thereto, the disability certificate/report was issued on the basis of the information and data available in the software/system then in use.

Having given anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the materials available on record, this Court finds that certain facts are not in dispute.

It is an admitted position that, at the time of counselling, the petitioner had produced a disability certificate issued by KGMU, Lucknow, a notified institution competent to issue such certificate. In the said certificate, against the column relating to the “Designated Disability Certification Centre”, the name of Dr. B. K. Ojha was inadvertently reflected. However, KGMU, Lucknow, subsequently clarified the position. The Medical Superintendent, KGMU, Lucknow, vide Letter No. 46701 dated 22.12.2025, categorically stated that the PWD certificate issued in favour of the petitioner was genuine and correct and further clarified that the name of the Designated Disability Certification Centre had been incorrectly reflected in the certificate on account of an error in the portal. It was also stated that the said error had subsequently been rectified.

This Court further finds that the petitioner was subjected to medical examination by IGIMS, Patna, in terms of the requirement prescribed by the Board. However, the report of IGIMS itself records that the functional competency with the aid of assistive devices, in cases of locomotor, visual or hearing impairment, could not be assessed on account of non-availability of the requisite software.

In the opinion of this Court, the non-availability of the requisite software at the end of the concerned institution is a circumstance wholly beyond the control of the petitioner. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer for any deficiency in the infrastructure, software or technical facility available with the institution which was entrusted with his medical assessment.

More importantly, KGMU, Lucknow, which is itself a notified institution, had issued the disability certificate in favour of the petitioner and the same was produced at the time of counselling and when the discrepancy in the certificate was brought to its notice, categorically clarified that the certificate was genuine and that the incorrect mention of the Designated Disability Certification Centre was merely the result of an error in the portal, which had subsequently been rectified. The genuineness of the certificate was thus duly verified and confirmed by the very institution which had issued it.

It is significant that the committee, while noticing the cancellation of the petitioner's provisional admission, had itself directed the Principal of Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital, Laheriasarai, to get the certificate verified from KGMU, Lucknow. The Principal accordingly obtained the requisite clarification from KGMU. Once such clarification had been received, confirming the genuineness of the certificate and explaining the discrepancy, this Court fails to appreciate what further justification remained for cancelling the petitioner's provisional admission.

The position becomes even more clear from the stand taken by IGIMS itself. The medical examination of the petitioner had admittedly been conducted by IGIMS; however, IGIMS has also acknowledged that, in the absence of the requisite software, the functional competency with the aid of assistive devices, in cases of locomotor, visual or hearing impairment, could not be assessed. Such a technical deficiency cannot, in the considered opinion of this Court, be converted into a ground to deprive the petitioner of the benefit of his otherwise duly verified disability certificate.

If the authorities were still of the view that any aspect of the petitioner's disability required further verification, the appropriate course would have been either to have the petitioner re-examined by another duly authorized medical institution or hospital or to seek appropriate guidance/clarification from the Board or the National Medical Commission. Instead, without undertaking any such further verification or seeking appropriate guidance, the authorities proceeded to cancel the petitioner's provisional admission.

The action of the respondents need to be tested in the touchstone of the well accepted principle enshrined in the legal maxim “ Commodum ex injuria sua nemo habere debet” which connotes that no party can take undue advantage of his own wrong. At this juncture, it would also be pertinent to recapitulate the significant observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kusheshwar Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors. [(2007) 11 SCC 447].

On an overall consideration of the matter, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the petitioner was not at fault at any stage of the process. The cancellation of his provisional admission has occurred on account of circumstances attributable to the respondent authorities and the technical deficiencies in the system employed by the concerned institutions. The petitioner cannot be made to bear the consequence of such circumstances.

This Court is also informed that, even as on date, three seats under the disability category are lying vacant. The availability of such seats assumes significance while considering the relief to be granted to the petitioner, particularly when his admission was initially accepted provisionally and the subsequent cancellation has been found to be unsustainable.

As regards delay and laches, letter contained in Memo No.8253 dated 25.11.2025, issued by the Principal of the AMC, Laheriasarai to the Examination Controller, B.C.E.C.E. Board and further the impugned order dated 17.12.2025 was received by the petitioner on 25.12.2025. The petitioner approached this Court without undue delay and instituted the present writ petition on 13.01.2026. The intervening period also included the winter vacation. In the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, this Court finds that there has been no unreasonable delay or laches on the part of the petitioner.

The issue relating to protection of the academic career of a candidate in circumstances where admission has been denied for reasons not attributable to the candidate has also been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, [(2020) 17 SCC 465], particularly paragraphs 9.2, 13.3 and 13.4. The principles laid down therein lend further support to the relief being granted to the petitioner in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.

For the reasons aforesaid, this Court is of the considered view that the action of the respondent authorities, particularly the Principal, Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital, Laheriasarai, in cancelling the petitioner's provisional admission is wholly unsustainable in law and on facts. The impugned order, therefore, warrants interference by this Court.

Accordingly, the letter contained in Memo No.8253 dated 25.11.2025 as also the order dated 17.12.2025 passed by the committee constituted by Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital, Laheriasarai, as contained in Memo No. 3, whereby the provisional admission of the petitioner was cancelled, are hereby set aside.

Since this Court has been informed that three seats under the disability category are still lying vacant, the respondents are directed to admit the petitioner against the appropriate disability-category seat for the academic session 2025-26, subject to completion of all requisite formalities and payment of the prescribed fees. The entire exercise shall preferably be completed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

It is made clear that, on account of the impugned action, the petitioner has been prevented from attending classes during the relevant academic session. The petitioner, therefore, shall be permitted to join the classes with the next available batch and the respondents shall make appropriate academic arrangements so that the petitioner does not suffer any further loss of his academic year on account of the action which has now been found to be unsustainable.

The competent authorities shall accordingly permit the petitioner to complete the requisite academic requirements and examinations in a manner that duly safeguards his academic progression, without granting him any undue advantage over other similarly situated students.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition stands allowed.