Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J
M.R.Yajith Krishna – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition filed for declaration of sop. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. rejection of admission based on medical standards. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. medical fitness is crucial for sainik school admissions. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. admission policies are aligned with military objectives. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. court confirms legality of sop against disability rights. (Para 11 , 12) |
ORDER
2. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the materials available on record.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the rejection for admission into 6th standard of the petitioner was not on the ground of ineligibility, but only on the ground of medical fitness; the respondents rejected the petitioner on medical grounds. The vision defect of the petitioner is to the extent of 6/36, which is above the prescribed Standard-I (6/6 and 6/6) and Standard-II (uncorrected V.A 6/18 and 6/18; BCVA 6/6 and 6/6). Therefore, the rejection of the petitioner's candidature is contrary to Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, it is a clear violation of the provisions under Sections 3 , 4, and 16 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for shor
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
