Rejection of admission based on medical fitness does not violate constitutional rights; military schools impose strict eligibility criteria.

ORDER

The Writ Petition has been filed for a declaration declaring the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for All India Sainik School Admission Counselling (AISSAC), insofar as the prescription of eye standard at Page No. 53 of the Standard Operating Procedure for admission for 6th standard in respect of the petitioner by the first respondent, as null and void; and to direct the respondents to admit the petitioner in 6th standard at Sainik School, Udumalpet, Tiruppur District.

2. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the materials available on record.

3. The petitioner had applied for admission to 6th Standard at Sainik School, Amaravathi Nagar, Udumalpet, Tiruppur District, to pursue his secondary education. He applied for the entrance examination and secured 227 marks out of 300 marks. Though he had scored well within the cut-off marks under the category of Scheduled Caste community, as per the communication dated 27.06.2025, the second respondent directed the petitioner to appear before the Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore, for verification of medical fitness. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared for a medical examination, and as per the medical report, the petitioner was declared medically unfit for Eye Standard-II. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for a review and was directed to report to Military Hospital, Chennai, for further examination. However, the medical report of Coimbatore Medical College Hospital was confirmed by the medical report issued by the Military Hospital, Chennai.

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 short).

4.1. He would also submit that Section 2(h) of the Act defines discrimination in relation to disability, meaning any distinction, exclusion, or restriction on the basis of disability that has the purpose or effect of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment, or exercise on an equal basis with others of all human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil, or any other field, and includes all forms of discrimination and denial of reasonable accommodation. Therefore, the Government shall ensure that persons with disabilities enjoy the right to equality, life with dignity, and respect for their integrity, equally with others.

4.2. He would further submit that the authorities concerned shall take measures to ensure that all genders with disabilities enjoy their rights equally with others. Therefore, educational institutions shall admit persons with disabilities without discrimination and provide education and opportunities for sports and recreation activities equally with others. Hence, the prescription of eye standards mentioned in the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for All India Sainik School Admission Counselling (AISSAC) is illegal and is liable to be declared void.

5. On perusal of the counter affidavit by the respondents and the submission made by the learned Senior Panel Counsel app