Uttarakhand High Court
Ms. Prakriti Maulekhi vs Union Of India And Others on 26 September, 2023
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
Reserved
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1733 of 2023
Ms. Prakriti Maulekhi .............Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Suman Negi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.C. Dumka, Advocate for respondent nos.2 and
3.
JUDGMENT
Per: Hon'ble 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.
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 2 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 3 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
4
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. S.C.A - 1 to this affidavit and letter dated 16/August/2023 send through Colonel Ashish Pande is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE NO. S.C.A.-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 ("the Medical Standards"), which is annexed as Annexure No.5 to the writ petition, particularly Clause 4 of it, which reads as hereunder:-
5
"4. To be deemed 'Medically fit', a candidate must be in good physical and mental health and free from any disease/syndrome/disability likely to interfere with the efficient performance of military duties in any terrain, climate, season incl sea and air, in remote areas, in austere conditions with no medical aid. Candidate also should be free of medical conditions which require frequent visit to medical facilities and use of any aid / drugs.
(a) It will, however, be ensured that candidate is in good health. There should be no evidence of weak constitution, imperfect development of any system, any congenital deformities/diseases/syndrome or malformation.
(b) No swellings including tumours/cyst/swollen lymph node/s anywhere on the body. No sinus/es or fistula/e anywhere on the body.
(c) No hyper or hypo pigmentation or any other disease/syndrome/disability of the skin.
(d) No hernia anywhere on the body.
(e) No scars which can impair the functioning and
cause significant disfiturement.
(f) No arterio-venous malformation anywhere
in/on the body.
(g) No malformation of the head and face including
asymmetry, deformity from fracture or depression of the bones of the skull; or scars indicating old operative interference and malformation like sinuses and fistulae etc. 6
(h) No impairment of vision including colour perception and field of vision.
(j) No hearing impairment, deformities/disabilities in ears vestibule-cochlear system.
(k) No impediment of speech due to any aetiology.
(l) No disease/disability/ congenital anomaly/syndrome of the bones or cartilages of the nose, or paiate nasal polyps or disease of the naso-Pharynx, uvula and accessory sinuses. There should be no nasal deformity and no features of chronic tonsillitis.
(m) No disease /syndrome/disability or the throat, palate tonsils or gums or any disease or injury affecting the normal function of either mandibular joint.
(n) No disease /syndrome/disability of the heart and blood vessels incl congenital, genetic, organic incl hypertension, and conduction disorders.
(o) No evidence or pulmonary tuberculosis or previous history of theis disease or any other disease /syndrome/disability chronic disease of the lungs and chest including allergies /immunological conditions, connective tissue disorders, musculoskeletal desformities of chest.
(p) No disease of the digestive system including any abnormality of the liver, pancreas incl endocrinal, congenital, hereditary or genetic diseases /syndromes and disabilities.
(q) No disease/syndrome/disability of any endocrinal system, reticuloendothelial system.7
(r) No diseases/syndrome/disability of genitor-
urinary system including malformations, atrophy/hypertrophy of any organ or gland.
(s) No active, latent or congenital venereal disease.
(t) No history or evidence of mental disease, epilepsy, incontinence of urine or eruresis.
(u) No disease/deformity/syndrome of musculo- skeletal system and joints incl skull, spine and limbs.
(v) There is no congenital or hereditary disease/syndrome/disability."
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.
8
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 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."
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.
9
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.
1.02 The other objectives of the scheme are :-
(a) To remove regional imbalance in the officer cadre of the defence services.
(b) To develop qualities of body, mind and character which will enable the yound 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:-
"3.09 All candidates before admission to Sainik School shall be subjected to a medical examination by a Board consisting of military or civil doctors. The standards of health and medical fitness would be the same as laid down for the NDA Examination. IN view of the tender age of the boys, however, no standards of height, 10 weight and chest measurement will be applicable at the time of admission.
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) for holding a review medical board. Additional expenditure, if any, will be borne by the school. However, the candidate will be required to appear before the Review Medical Board at the designated place at his own expense. In case the Review Medical Board finds him fit for admission, the fee charged from the parent will be refunded."
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 11 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 12 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.
20. The petition is dismissed.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 26.09.2023 Sanjay