IMPORTANT POINT
The principle of 'reasonable accommodation' under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the applicability of legal views from previous cases involving candidates with colour vision deficiency were central to the judgment.

ORDER :

1. Applications for exemption from filing C/C of the impugned judgment, permission to file additional documents/facts/annexure and exemption from filing affidavit are allowed.

2. Leave granted.

3. Colour blindness is not a form of blindness at all, but a deficiency in the way you see colour. This medical condition makes it difficult to distinguish certain colours such as blue and yellow or red and green. It is stated that an estimated 8% of male population and less than 1% of the female population have red and green colour deficiency being most common form of colour blindness¹ [Colur blindness by Gretchyn Bailey, Annexure A-11 of Additional Documents, Vol. II]. The lis in the present case arises from a fundamental question whether a person who is colour blind is precluded from pursuing a course for Diploma in Editing in the Film and Television Institute of India, Pune (FTII)/respondent No. 1.

4. The appellant applied for the Diploma in Film Editing course for the admission to session 2015 and met all the rigorous requirements for a selection process for three years post graduate diploma course in editing. We are informed that about 10 candidates for each discipline are selected as against almost 2000 students applying for the same.

5. Pursuant to the selection, the appellant was examined by a doctor of respondent No. 1 on 28.07.2016 and was found that he was colour blind in both eyes (red, green, blue) to the extent of more than 60%. The travails of the appellant began thereafter. The FTII/respondent No. 1 made an order canceling his admission based on the aforementioned medical examination by decision dated 01.08.2016. This in turn was based on the FTII Entrance Examination Rules which bars colour blind students from being admitted in respondent No. 1, Institute for the Editing course. The relevant embargoes are contained in Rule 13 of the Rules which inter-alia debars the candidates. The Rule stipulates that the FTII provides audio-visual training but it is not possible to offer admission to the candidates having 100% physical disability. Apart from that, certain courses are found not suitable for certain categories of disability and course in editing is one of them specified for visually handicapped. The Rule also stipulates that candidates suffering from colour blindness are not suitable for those courses which are not suitable for visually handicapped candidates.

6. The appellant filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court which was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 07.03.2017 predicated on a reasoning that since the appellant was colour blind in both eyes to the extent of 60% and the experts decided that colour blind candidates would not be eligible, it would not be appropriate to interfere with the opinion of the experts.

7. We may note that apparently two other colour blind students, one admitted in 2013 for a three year diploma in film editing had graduated but then apparently the experience with those candidates may have persuaded the FTII to make the said Rule. The challenge to the Rule was laid only when the appellant was detected with the problem and not earlier.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant at the inception sought to rely upon the principle of the “Reasonable Accommodation” which underlines the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 with an objective of recognizing the worth of every person as an equal member of the society. The endeavour is to foster a condition on which every individual can evolve according to the capacities as a key element protecting, respecting and facilitating individual autonomy. He seeks to refer to the observations in Vikash Kumar vs. Union Public Service Commission and Others, (2021) 5 SCC 370 where this principle of “reasonable accommodation” has been discussed. This argument is based on the approach which a Court should adopt even though the present case is not one of seeking any special privilege or reserva