Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2023 AIR (Uttaranchal) 179 Civil Misc. Writ Petition Prakriti Maulekhi vs UOI and Others
2023 AIR (Uttaranchal) 179 Civil Misc. Writ Petition Prakriti Maulekhi vs UOI and Others
2023 AIR (Uttaranchal) 179 Civil Misc. Writ Petition Prakriti Maulekhi vs UOI and Others
Versus
Present:-
[Para 18]
E/98469/03/24
JUDGMENT
Ravindra Maithani, J. - 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.
https://www.lawfinderlive.com/Judgement.aspx?v=XthJN1ldjZyFOs2YWvrAA2ClZOMIlQPUM6hPzWMB0tSiPPyMtupSHh8cfIusNifk7hcrm2826g… 1/7
08/06/2024, 20:49 Hitlist Rank - 10 (2429166)
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
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.
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:-
i. Fitzsimmons Syndrome
https://www.lawfinderlive.com/Judgement.aspx?v=XthJN1ldjZyFOs2YWvrAA2ClZOMIlQPUM6hPzWMB0tSiPPyMtupSHh8cfIusNifk7hcrm2826g… 2/7
08/06/2024, 20:49 Hitlist Rank - 10 (2429166)
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.
(e) No scars which can impair the functioning and cause significant
disfiturement.
https://www.lawfinderlive.com/Judgement.aspx?v=XthJN1ldjZyFOs2YWvrAA2ClZOMIlQPUM6hPzWMB0tSiPPyMtupSHh8cfIusNifk7hcrm2826g… 3/7
08/06/2024, 20:49 Hitlist Rank - 10 (2429166)
10. It is argued that the alleged deformity in no manner interfere with the
performance of the petitioner, therefore, the rejection on the medical ground is
not as per Rules.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.2 and 3
would submit that a student has to meet all the Medical Standards for admission
in the School. The petitioner did not qualify the Medical Standards. Therefore,
she has been denied admission. It is submitted that when the Board at Bareilly
did not find the petitioner medically fit, the petitioner was further examined at
Command Hospital, Lucknow, but still she was found medically unfit.
12. During the course of arguments the Court wanted to know from the
respondent no.3, who had filed the counter affidavit, as to what is the basis of the
averments made in the counter affidavit? At the cost of repetition, it may be
noted that in para 11 of his counter affidavit, the respondent no.3 has stated that
the deformity in petitioner, "represents a congenital insufficiency of
https://www.lawfinderlive.com/Judgement.aspx?v=XthJN1ldjZyFOs2YWvrAA2ClZOMIlQPUM6hPzWMB0tSiPPyMtupSHh8cfIusNifk7hcrm2826g… 4/7
08/06/2024, 20:49 Hitlist Rank - 10 (2429166)
13. When the Court required to know from the respondent no.3, as to what is the
basis of the averments made in the supplementary affidavit, he sought time with
the request that he may explain the things with the help of Medical Officer
concerned. On the date of arguments, Colonel Ashish, Head of Orthopaedics
Department, Command Hospital, Lucknow did join the proceedings. Colonel
Ashish explained that as per the Medical Standards set out for admission in the
School, they examined the petitioner and found that she is not medically fit. He
would refer to Clause 4 of the Medical Standards, as quoted hereinbefore.
14. The Rules and Regulations of the School governs its working and admission,
as well. Para 1.01 and 1.02 sets the aims and objectives of the School. It is as
follows:-
"1.01 The scheme to establish Sainik Schools was introduced in 1961 with
the primary aim of preparing boys academically, physically and "mentally"
for entry into the National Defence Academy.
(b) To develop qualities of body, mind and character which will enable the
young boys of today and become good and useful citizens of tomorrow.
(c) To bring public school education within the reach of the common man. "
15. Para 1.11 of the Rules and Regulations prescribes for the scheme of Entrance
Examination, which also stipulates a Medical Examination. The Rules that
governs the Medical Standards for admission in the School are set out in para
3.09/3.10 of the Rules and Regulations. They are as follows:-
3.10 The decision of the Medical Board will be final except where a
representation has been made to the Principal. The Principal will examine
the appeal himself and decide with reference to the evidence produced
before him if the case calls for a review medical board on merit. A case in
which competent medical opinion is produced to counter the findings of
the previous medical board, will normally merit a review. The Principal
may arrange a review medical board for re-examination of the candidate.
If the review medical board finds him fit for admission, the Principal will
admit him to the school if his rejection was only on account of lack of
medical fitness. The school will charge a fee of Rs.100/-) Rs.50/- from SC/ST)
https://www.lawfinderlive.com/Judgement.aspx?v=XthJN1ldjZyFOs2YWvrAA2ClZOMIlQPUM6hPzWMB0tSiPPyMtupSHh8cfIusNifk7hcrm2826g… 5/7
08/06/2024, 20:49 Hitlist Rank - 10 (2429166)
16. The above Rules and Regulations makes it clear that after Written
Examination/Entrance, a student has to under the Medical Examination Test and
unless, he/she be declared medically fit, he/she may not be admitted in the
School. The Medical Standard as per para 3.09 of the Rules and Regulations
would be the same as laid down for the NDA examination. The Clause 4 of the
Medical Standards, as quoted hereinabove, in first part deals with good physical
and mental health free from any disease/syndrome/disability likely to interfere
with any efficient performance, but this is not the sole clause. The Sub-Heads 'a'
to 'v' are also part of Clause 4. They are not disjunctive, but they have to be read
with it. Therefore, as per Clause 4 of the Medical Standards, a candidate shall be
deemed to be medically fit, if he/she is in good mental health and free from any
disease/syndrome/disability likely to interfere with any efficient performance,
etc. In addition to it, the candidate should be of good health. There should be no
evidence of weak constitution, imperfect development of any system, any
congenital deformity/diseases/syndrome or malformation, as per clause 'a' of
para 4 of the Medical Standards.
17. Admittedly, the petitioner has a congenital deformity. It is not in dispute that
the petitioner was found to have a Biletaral Brachydactyly fourth toes, which
represents a congenital insufficiency.
18. Clause 4 of the Medical Standards cannot be read in a manner that despite
any deformity if a candidate is in a good physical and mental health and
deformity may not interfere with his efficient performance, he/she may be
declared medically fit. According to the Clause 4 of the Medical Standards, at the
cost of repetition, it may be stated that a candidate should be medically fit in the
manner that he/she must be in a good physical and mental health, free from any
disease/syndrome/disability likely to interfere with the efficient performance,
etc., but there should also be no evidences of any congenital deformities. The
petitioner suffers with congenital deformity. As per the Medical Standards set for
admission in the School, it is immaterial whether this congenital deformity may
or may not interfere with the functioning and performance of the petitioner at
present or anytime in future. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the
petitioner does not meet the Medical Standards set out for admission in the
School. Her rejection is as per the Rules and Regulations.
19. Having considered, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to make
any interference in the writ petition. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be
dismissed.
https://www.lawfinderlive.com/Judgement.aspx?v=XthJN1ldjZyFOs2YWvrAA2ClZOMIlQPUM6hPzWMB0tSiPPyMtupSHh8cfIusNifk7hcrm2826g… 6/7
08/06/2024, 20:49 Hitlist Rank - 10 (2429166)
https://www.lawfinderlive.com/Judgement.aspx?v=XthJN1ldjZyFOs2YWvrAA2ClZOMIlQPUM6hPzWMB0tSiPPyMtupSHh8cfIusNifk7hcrm2826g… 7/7