Umesh Kumar vs State of Haryana and Another

D.V. Sehgal, J.—This judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 8864 and 7713 of 1987. The questions of law and fact involved in both the petitions are similar, Reference to the facts and documents shall, however, be made from Civil Writ Petition No. 8864 of 1987.

The petitioner got admission to the 1st Year of Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical) Course in Chhotu Ram State College of Engineering, Murthal (Haryana). He was admitted to the Course on 30th Oct. 1987. A candidate seeking admission to the Course is required to get himself medically examined and is admitted to the Course in case he is found to be medically fit. The object of medical examination is spelt out in the Information Bulletin issued by respondent 2 as under :--

"As the Engineering profession demands a good physique and stamina, a candidate seeking admission must make certain that he/she does not suffer from any organic defect and that he/she is physically fit to bear the strain of the programme and later, of the professional life."

Annexure VI to the said Information Bulletin lays down the following eyesight standard for medical fitness of a candidate :--

"3. Acuteness of visions will be ascertained by two tests (one for distance and the other for near visions). The tests for distance vision with or without glasses will be at 20 feet.

The test for near vision will be at any distance selected by the candidate. The standard of vision shall not be less than :--

One eye The other eye without or with glasses. Distance vision. 6/6 or 6/9 6/12 or 6/9 Near vision. 0.6 0.8

Glasses allowed for hypermetropic astigmatism shall not exceed 3.5D. Glasses allowed for myopia or myopia astigmatism shall not exceed 2.5D."

The petitioner was referred for medical examination to the Chief Medical Officer, Sonepat, who in turn referred his case to the Rohtak Medical College and Hospital. A Board of Ophthalmologists consisting of two Associate Professors and one lecturer in Ophthalmology examined the petitioner and gave the following finding : --

"Vision without glasses : R/E (right eye) 6/60. L/E (left eye) 6/60. Vision with glasses : R/E: 6/6(--4.OD.Sph.)J1 L/E: 6/6(--4.OD.Sph)J1. Colour vision : Normal. Fundus: Simple Myopia. In our opinion he is fit for admission to Bachelor of Engineering Course."

In spite of this finding of the Board of Ophthalmologists the Chief Medical Officer issued a certificate Annexure P/2 stating therein that on the basis of number of glasses in both eyes according to standard laid down in Annexure VI of the Information Bulletin, the petitioner is unfit. It was, however, made clear therein that he has no disease of mental or bodily infirmity unfitting him and or likely to unfit him in future for admission to Engineering College, Murthal active outdoor service. As a consequence of the certificate Annexure P/2 issued by the Chief Medical Officer the Director-Principal of the College respondent 2 vide letter dt. 17-11-1987, Annexure P/3, cancelled the provisional admission of the petitioner to the Engineering Course observing that according to the prescribed standard of medical fitness, glasses are allowed for hypermetropic astigmatism up to 3.5D and for myopia or myopia astigmatism up to 2.5D and that the petitioner has not been able to come up to the requisite standard of eyesight.

5A. Through the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the cancellation of his admission vide order, Annexure P/3 and has also brought into question the vires of the stipulation contained in Regulation 3 of Appendix VI of the Information Bulletin to the effect "Glasses allowed for myopia or myopia astigmatism shall not exceed 2.5D."

In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent 2, it has been maintained that the standard of eyesight and the power glasses mentioned in the aforesaid Regulation is a must as a student of the Engineering Courses has to handle different instruments and machinery and after qualifying the Degree Course he has to enter the profession of Engineering and standard eyesight for the purpose is very essential:

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In almost all the professional Colleges including Engineering Institutions for Degree Course the standard of vision prescribed is 6/9 both eyes or 6/6 in better eye in the case of defective vision corrected with glasses. The Indian Institute of Technology is one of the pioneer Institutions in the country. It has several Four Years'' Degree Courses in different faculties of Engineering. The requirement of physical fitness as regards eyesight laid down by this Institute is the same as mentioned by me above. This is evidenced by the Information Brochure of the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, Bombay, Madras, Kanpur, Delhi and Institute of Technology BHU Varanasi issued on 4th Feb. 1987 which has been produced before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Similar standard of vision for admission to Four Years'' Degree Course in Engineering is laid down in the Admission Brochure of the Regional Engineering College, Kurukshetra for the year 1987-88 which inter alia, provides thus : --

"Vision: Normal.

In case of defective vision, it must be corrected to 6/9 in both eyes or 6/6 in better eye. Candidates taking admission in mining engineering must be free from colour blindness defective vision and should not use spectacles above power 3."

Thus it is clear that in case of students of different faculties of Degree Courses in Engineering in case of defective vision it is provided that it can be corrected by use of power glasses to 6/9 in both eyes or-6/6 in better eye. The standard so fixed by the different Engineering Institutions has been specifically averred by the petitioner in para 7 of the writ petition. Corresponding para of the written statement does not controvert this fact. In fact the relevant brochures of these Institutions have been perused by me today.

We now live in a scientifically advanced age. Medical science has had phenomenal progress in the course for the last one decade. If with medical aid and particularly by provision of glasses or contact lenses the vision can be corrected to the standard prescribed, there is no earthly reason why the candidate with the vision so corrected should be denied admission to the Engineering Course. Instances are not lacking where students who are totally blind are being admitted to different courses, of course not to the Engineering Courses, but they are allowed admission to various Arts Faculties right up to the Doctorate so that they acquire necessary qualification to harness their inherent qualities for the progress and well being of the Society and at the same time to earn their livelihood. No reason has been assigned by respondent2 why a candidate with power glasses above 2.5 power should be denied admission to the Engineering Course when such power glasses correct the defective vision up to the required standard. I have no hesitation to hold that the provision to this effect in the Brochure which has been impugned herein is altogether arbitrary, unconstitutional and unsustainable. This part of the provision is, therefore, quashed.

Consequently, I allow both these writ petitions. I quash the order Annexure P/3 in Civil Writ Petition No. 8864 of 1987.1 direct respondent 2 to allow both the petitioners to continue with their studies in the Engineering Course to which they were admitted by treating them medically fit. The petitioners shall also get the costs of these writ petitions which are fixed at Rs. 500/- in each writ petition.