SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(UK) 625

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
Ms. Prakriti Maulekhi – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (M/s) No. 1733 of 2023
Decided On : 26-09-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Suman Negi.
For the Respondent: S.C. Dumka.

Admission denial based on non-compliance with Medical Standards and Rules and Regulations governing admission in Sainik School.

Headnote:

Medical Fitness - Admission in Sainik School - Rules and Regulations, 1997 - Para 1.11, 3.09, 3.10

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought admission in Sainik School but was denied due to not meeting the physical and medical fitness standards. She challenged the denial, arguing that her toe deformity should not be a ground for rejection.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's congenital deformity did not meet the Medical Standards set for admission in the School, as per Rules and Regulations, and therefore dismissed the petition.

Issues: Admission denial based on medical fitness standards, interpretation of Medical Standards and Rules and Regulations governing admission.

Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner's congenital deformity did not meet the Medical Standards set for admission in the School, as per Rules and Regulations.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.

1. The petitioner applied for admission in the Sainik School, Ghorakhal, Nainital (“the School”). She was denied admission on the ground that she did not meet the physical and medical fitness standards. The petitioner seeks directions that she be allowed to be admitted in the School.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to an advertisement for Entrance Examination in the School, she took the entrance test and obtained 260 marks out of 300 marks. After the Written Examination, she was required to undergo Medical Examination at Military Hospital Bareilly, but she was declared unfit on account of Biletaral Brachydactyly fourth toes. The father of the petitioner appealed before the appellate authority against the decision of Medical Board. The petitioner was called for the Medical Board proceedings at the Command Hospital, Lucknow, but she was still declared medically unfit on account of deformity of the toe in both the feet.

4. According to the petitioner, the School aims to provide quality education to the students so that they can join Armed Forces and also join other professions. The deformity of the toe, if it does not interfere with the dressing/walking/running/swimming or climbing, should not be a ground for rejection for admission in the School. With these and other averments, the petitioner seeks directions that she be permitted to be admitted in the School.

5. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 filed their counter affidavit. According to the respondent nos. 2 and 3, the School is run by the Sainik School Society Rules and Regulations, 1997 (“the Rules and Regulations”). The scheme to establish Sainik Schools was introduced in the year 1961 with the primary aim of preparing boys academically, physically and mentally fit for entering into the National Defence Academy (“the NDA”). In Para 1.11 of the Rules and Regulations, admission to the School is subject to candidates being found medically fit according to medical standards prescribed for entry to the NDA.

6. According to the respondent nos.2 and 3, on Medical Board Examination, it was found that the petitioner has a congenital insufficiency of musculoskeletal structures of both feet and may be associated with other congenital anomalies in the body which are not clinically obvious at present stage, but may manifest later on.

7. During the course of hearing on 10.08.2023, the Court had directed the respondent no. 3 to explain the basis of the averments made in the counter affidavit. A supplementary affidavit has been filed. In Para 3 of it, the respondent no. 3 has stated as follows:

“3. That in pursuant of the Hon’ble Court order dated 10.08.2023 it is submitted that, from the available Medical Literature it is evident that Brachydactyly may be associated with other anomalies and syndrome like:

(i) Fitzsimmons Syndrome

(ii) Robinow Syndrome

(iii) Familial Hypertension

(iv) Spondyloperipheral Dysplasia

(v) Associated with short humerus & other skeletal features

(vi) Congenital scalp defect & distal limb anomalies

A copy of articles and Journal supporting the above statement is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE NO. SCA-1 to this affidavit and letter dated 16/August/2023 send through Colonel Ashish Pande is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE NO. SCA-2 TO THIS Supplementary Counter Affidavit.”

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that she is a very bright student; she scored very good marks in the Entrance Examination for admission in the School, but on medical ground, she has been rejected. Learned counsel would submit that the deformity, as indicated by the Medical Board in no manner affects the working capacity of the petitioner, therefore, it is argued that even the petitioner meets the medical standards set out for admission in the School.

9. Learned counsel has referred to the MEDICAL STANDARDS AND PROCEDURE OF MEDICAL EXAMINATION FOR OFFICER ENTRIES INTO ARMY

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top