Orissa HC: Medical Board Cannot Assess Thalassemia as Locomotor Disability, Sets Aside DMET Report

The Orissa High Court held that β Thalassemia Trait is a specified disability under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and quashed a Medical Assessment Board report that judged it solely on functional limitation.

A Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, led by Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Chittaranjan Dash, set aside a Medical Assessment Board report that had refused to certify a NEET candidate's condition as a disability. The Board had concluded that “β Thalassemia Trait” is an asymptomatic carrier state without significant functional disability and therefore did not meet the prescribed criteria for a Disability Certificate. The Division Bench found this conclusion contrary to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which expressly lists Thalassemia as a specified disability under the blood disorder category, entirely independent of locomotor function. With OJEE 2026 counselling ongoing, the court directed fresh assessment within four days.

The Dispute Before the High Court

Harapriya Das, the petitioner, had ranked in the NEET examination and sought admission under the PwD quota. She held a Disability Certificate issued by a competent authority for β Thalassemia Trait. The Directorate of Medical Education & Training (DMET), Odisha — opposite party No. 2 — referred her case to the Medical Assessment Board, which examined her and issued its opinion on 22 August 2026.

The Board's opinion, produced before the Division Bench pursuant to an earlier order dated 8 September 2026, stated that the petitioner's condition is an asymptomatic carrier state without any significant functional disability and therefore does not meet the prescribed criteria for a Certificate of Disability. On the strength of this report, a notice dated 25 August 2026 was issued by the Chairman, Odisha Joint Entrance Examination-2026 (OJEE-2026), which the petitioner challenged.

With counselling actively underway, the petitioner approached the court for urgent intervention. Advocate Mr. Pabitra Kumar Dutta appeared for the petitioner. Mr. R. C. Mohanty appeared for DMET (opposite party No. 2). Mr. Amitav Mishra, Mr. S. B. Panda (AGA), and Mr. P. K. Parhi (DSGI) along with Mr. S. M. Pattnaik (CGC) appeared for the remaining opposite parties.

The Legal Question: What Is a Specified Disability?

The central question was whether Thalassemia falls within the definition of “specified disability” under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and whether an assessment that focuses only on locomotor or functional impairment correctly applies that Act.

Section 2(r) of the Act defines a “person with benchmark disability” as a person with not less than forty per cent of a specified disability. Section 2(zc) defines “specified disability” by reference to the Schedule appended to the Act. The Schedule explicitly lists Thalassemia as a blood disorder coming within specified disability, describing it as a group of inherited disorders characterised by reduced or absent amounts of haemoglobin.

The Amendment Notification dated 13 May 2019, issued by the Board of Governors in supersession of the Medical Council of India, was also before the court. That Notification uses the term “Persons with Disabilities” in place of “Physically Handicapped” and includes Thalassemia in its table of specified disabilities. It further provides that a candidate with Thalassemia below 40% is not eligible under the PwD quota, that eligibility applies in the 40–80% range, and that those exceeding 80% are also outside the eligibility criteria.

How the Division Bench Reasoned

The Division Bench was direct: the Medical Assessment Board's opinion was “restrictive on the functional disability,” meaning it examined only locomotor impact and never asked whether Thalassemia itself qualifies as a disability. That framing, the court held, was legally incorrect.

The court applied the cardinal principle that once words and expressions are defined in a statute, those definitions govern wherever those words appear in the Act. Thalassemia is independently listed in the Schedule as a blood disorder under specified disability. “Physical disability” is a separate category in the Schedule, sitting alongside “Intellectual disability,” “Mental behaviour,” “Neurological disability,” and “Blood disorder.” The Board's approach of testing Thalassemia against the yardstick of locomotor or functional disability effectively collapsed distinct categories into one — something the Act does not permit.

The court was clear that the moment a statute includes a particular disease as a disability, the Medical Assessment Board's assessment must be confined to that category. It cannot cross into another category and apply that other category's benchmark. Each disability stands on its own independent footing and cannot be subsumed into another.

The 2019 Amendment Notification reinforced this. By expressly including Thalassemia and by prescribing the 40–80% eligibility band for that disease specifically, the Notification confirmed that the relevant inquiry is the percentage of Thalassemia-related disability, not whether the disease causes locomotor impairment. Since there was no challenge to the Notification, the court proceeded on that basis.

The cumulative effect, in the court's view, was that the Medical Assessment Board's report ran counter to the spirit of the Act and the Notification. The Board had effectively denied the petitioner's disability certificate without ever engaging with the correct legal question.

The bench also noted that it was not applying procedural rigour in the technical sense, given that counselling was ongoing and any further delay would directly affect the petitioner's admission prospects. The court took the Board's report on record as part of the proceedings and decided the matter on merits without requiring further procedural steps.

Directions Issued

The Division Bench set aside the report of the Medical Assessment Board dated 22 August 2026 as contrary to the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the 2019 Amendment Notification.

DMET (opposite party No. 2) was directed to constitute a fresh Medical Assessment Board. The petitioner must appear before that Board, which is required to assess the percentage of her disability to determine whether she falls within the eligibility criterion — that is, whether her Thalassemia-related disability is in the 40–80% band.

Given that OJEE-2026 counselling is ongoing, the court directed that the entire exercise be completed within four days from the date of the order. The petitioner was simultaneously directed to present herself before the Board and not adopt any dilatory practice.

Outcome

The notice dated 25 August 2026 issued by the Chairman, Odisha Joint Entrance Examination-2026 (Annexure-4), was quashed and set aside in respect of the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of on 10 September 2026 with the directions noted above.