DEEPU Vs. COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner applied for admission to the Engineering course this year through the Entrance Examination conducted by the first respondent under the quota fixed for persons with physical disability, Along with the application, he produced Ext.P2 certificate issued by a Medical Board consisting of Medical Officers of the State, They certified 40% disability. According to the petitioner, from birth itself, he did not have vision in one eye. It is taking into account this disability that Ext.P.2 certificate has been issued certifying disability of 40% on account of lack of vision in one eye. The petitioner, however was denied admission in the quota fixed for persons with physical disability and it is under the said circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court with this Writ Petition, seeking a direction to the respondents to admit him in accordance with his rank and option.

(2.) The learned Government Pleader on the strength of a counter affidavit stated to have been filed, submits that Ext.P.2 would enable the petitioner only for provisional admission subject to confirmation of his disability by an expert Medical Board constituted for the purpose of the Entrance Examination as provided in the prospectus itself. The State Medical Board thus constituted examined the petitioner and certified disability of less than 40%. Since only persons having disability of 40% and above only would be entitled to admission in the quota fixed for persons with physical disability, the petitioner was denied admission under that quota. The learned Government Pleader submits that since the disability has been assessed by an expert Medical Body constituted specifically for that purpose, their certificate should have more value than Ext.P2 and therefore there is nothing wrong in the decision taken by the first respondent on the basis of such certificate issued by the Expert Body.

(3.) I have considered the rival contentions in detail. I find that Ext.P2 certificate has also been issued by an expert Medical Board consisting of Medical Officers of the State itself. They have chosen to certify 40% disability for the petitioner. No arguments are advanced before me, on the basis that the petitioner's contention that the petitioner has no vision in one eye from birth itself is not correct. As such as a fact, 1 have to accept that the petitioner has complete lack of vision in one eye. I find that under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the percentage of disabilities are prescribed for various injuries for the purpose of assessment of workmen's compensation. In the Schedule to the said Act, I find that for complete loss of vision in one eye the percentage of disability fixed is 40%. Of course, the learned Government Pleader submits that the Workmen's Compensation Act cannot be taken as a yardstick for the purpose of admissions, since the objects of Workmen's Compensation Act is totally different. I feel that whatever be the object the percentage of disability would be the same for loss of one eye because the Legislature has fixed the same after taking into account the expert advice on the effect of such a disability on the person. Further the percentage of disability for admission to professional courses also has to be taken into account now that disability would affect the profession he has to enter into after his studies. Therefore, I do not see any substantial difference between the two. As such, I am inclined to take the percentage fixed under the Schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act as a yardstick for the purpose of assessment of percentage of disability for the present purpose also.