Summary
The Court held that a NEET candidate with dysgraphia was wrongfully denied her compensatory hour. The admission-stage disability certificate could not be demanded as a condition for examination accommodations. Rights available to persons with disabilities must not be restricted by importing the benchmark-disability threshold applicable to specified benefits such as reservation. A separate re-examination was refused, but NTA had to consider effective corrective measures and improve its instructions and staff training.
Issues
- Whether an admission-stage disability certificate was necessary to receive compensatory examination time.
- Whether reasonable accommodation could be restricted to persons meeting the benchmark-disability threshold.
- What remedy was appropriate after wrongful denial of compensatory time.
Provisions considered
- Sections 2(r), 2(s) and 2(y), Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016The Court distinguished benchmark disability from disability generally and applied the statutory duty of reasonable accommodation. (¶¶ 35, 37, 41)
- Section 3, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016Equality and non-discrimination include the positive duty to ensure reasonable accommodation. (¶¶ 36, 37, 41, 42)
- Section 17(i), Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016Suitable examination modifications protect inclusive education and cannot be conflated with eligibility for admission reservations. (¶¶ 39, 40, 43)
- Section 32, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016The benchmark threshold continues to govern reservation and the associated upper-age relaxation in higher education. (¶¶ 37, 57)
Held
- The candidate was entitled to one compensatory hour under the applicable guidelines and NEET Bulletin irrespective of whether she used a scribe. The designated-centre certificate requiring an examination rank belonged to the later admission stage; NTA’s contrary instructions and the examination centre’s lack of training wrongfully deprived her of the accommodation. (¶¶ 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 43, 44)
- Persons with benchmark disabilities form a subset of persons with disabilities. General statutory rights and inclusive-education accommodations cannot be curtailed by an administrative insistence on the higher benchmark threshold, although that threshold remains applicable to reservation and the specified age relaxation. (¶¶ 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 57)
- A fresh individual examination was impracticable and improper, but the scale of NEET did not excuse leaving the injustice unremedied. NTA had to determine the corrective method; extrapolation, compensatory marks and removal of negative marking were illustrative options, not a judicially imposed scoring formula. (¶¶ 48, 49, 50, 51, 54, 55, 56, 57)
- NTA was directed to remove ambiguity in its bulletin and regularly sensitise and train its personnel and examination-centre staff on reasonable accommodation. (¶ 57)
Result
Appeal disposed of. Re-examination refused; NTA directed to consider corrective steps within one week, take consequential measures under intimation to DGHS, and report the steps to the Supreme Court Registry within two weeks. No particular marks adjustment or admission was ordered.