JUDGMENT 1. - Whether a student who is blind by one eye but is otherwise medically fit and whose vision in the other eye is 6/6, can be refused admission to the Engineering course as being medically unfit? This is a short but extremely important question involved in this case. The petitioner has been forced to feel as an ill-fated student being handicapped but should an educational institution deprive him from achieving the target he has fixed for his life? 2. The petitioner who comes from a rural area, namely, village Sapotara, District Sawaimadhopur has despite all shortcomings and handicaps, an outstanding and a First Class career. He passed his Secondary Examination, Higher Secondary Examination and B. Sc. 1st year and IInd year examinations, all in 1st class with distinctions. He being eligible appeared in pre-engineering test 1990 for the purpose of seeking admission to the Engineering Course in an Engineering College in Rajasthan, with his Roll No 4990. In this test he secured 579 marks out of 900 marks and his merit rank was 551. He also passed in the paper of English. He was called for interview by the Interview Board on 19.8.1990, which rejected him as medically unfit. Petitioner had got himself medically examined at General Hospital, Udaipur as was required by rules and the certificate issued to him for chemical fitness is Annexure 2. It was mentioned in the certificate, 'Left eye blind but vision is 6/6 in the right eye". Doctor has also given a note, "traumatic injection left eye resulted in complete loss of vision". The Doctor further mentioned, 'left eye blind otherwise medically fit". The Interview Board therefore, on 19.8.90 rejected him outright as disqualified for admission. The petitioner therefore, filed this writ petition challenging the order of his rejection. The petitioner's case in the writ petition is that there is no such medical standard prescribed, which debars a person who is one eye blind from seeking admission to the Engineering Course. It is submitted what is disqualification is the defective vision and one eyed man cannot be known to have defective vision if his other eye is otherwise normal and have complete vision. It is also contended that the denial of right to admission is violative of Article 41 of the Constitution of India because a disabled person is bound to be protected by the State. It is also contended that the denial of right to admission is violative of Article 41 of the Constitution of India because a disabled person is bound to be protected by the State. It is submitted that the petitioner is a talented and brilliant student who is functionally able to join the Engineering Course in as much as he is, in a capacity to do all sorts of Experiments as is also borne out from his 2nd year Science result wherein he has secured 44 marks out of 50 marks in the Experiments which are conducted in the dark rooms. 3. The reply of the University is that since the candidate had a defective vision as he was blind by one eye, it could not be possible for the Admission Board to give him admission. It is submitted that the Medical Officer had put up a note on the medical certificate traumatic injection left eye resulting in complete loss of vision of left eye. It is submitted that he did not fulfil requirement No. 7 in the head 'Vision.' 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the entire record. 5. Before I proceed further I deem it proper to mention that the petitioner had successfully completed the practicals and experiments in Physics in his B. Sc. 2nd year where he was required to determine the wave length of Sodium light by microscope, to determine the diameter of spherical waves, to determine the wave length of Sodium light by frenal bi prism, to find the dople moment of Sugar Solution by miscroscope. He secured 44 marks out of 50 marks in Physics practical and 40 marks out of 50 marks in Chemistry practical which on merit shows that he is able to work on miscroscope with precision an also able to work on prism that is to distinguish even in colours. The Doctor in his report has also stated that his vision in the right eye is 6/6, the question therefore is, should a person who is handicapped by one eye, be deprived from being admitted as medically disqualified. The requirement of Admission Board is as under : "Vision : Normal, Where defective, it must be corrected to 6/9 in the better eyes and 6/12 in the worse eye. Eye should be free from congential and other diseases. The requirement of Admission Board is as under : "Vision : Normal, Where defective, it must be corrected to 6/9 in the better eyes and 6/12 in the worse eye. Eye should be free from congential and other diseases. In case of admission to Mining Engineering courses the candidates must be free from colour blindness (inability to distinguish between principal colour) also." Vision is defined in Webster's 3rd New International Dictionary as "the act or power of seeing; visual sensation or the capacity for it; sight, the special sense that is concerned with the perception and distinguishing of the qualities of an object; as colour luminosity, shape and size constituting its appearance, i.e., mediated by the rods and cones of the ratina, stimulated by light projected from the object through the lense of the eye, and that is conducted centrally by the optic nurves and is co-ordinated especially by centres in the lateral geniculate bodies and the occipital region of the ceribral coctex." It also means something seen-an object on sight; momentary sight. The word vision has also several other meanings but they are not relevant for the purposes of this writ petition. The question is whether a defective vision is the same as blind by one eye. What is requirement is normal vision, i.e., the person having normal eye sight and not defective vision The vision may be in one eye or in both the eyes is not the requirement of the rule. It does not say in both the eyes. Even if the requirement is paraphrased it reads-It must be corrected to 6/9 in better eyes and 6/12 in the worse eye. Eye should be free from congenital and other diseases. Except at one place where the word 'better eyes' is used at other places is it used in singular. In fact the framers of the rule have hardly demonstrated required knowledge of grammar as he has at two places used the word eye-m singular and at one place in plural. The rule is thus defective and therefore cannot be read to the disadvantage of the candidate and it will have to be read as an 'eye' as against 'eyes.' Besides this, defective 'eye' or 'eyes' or vision is not the same as blindness by one eye. In blindness there is complete loss of vision. The rule is thus defective and therefore cannot be read to the disadvantage of the candidate and it will have to be read as an 'eye' as against 'eyes.' Besides this, defective 'eye' or 'eyes' or vision is not the same as blindness by one eye. In blindness there is complete loss of vision. If a man is blind by one eye, it is loss of vision in one eye and if blind by both eyes then he is totally blind having no vision at all But blindness under no circumstances can be confused with defective vision. The requirement of rule is normal vision and the petitioner by all standards has a normal vision I fail to understand that a person with one eye would not be in a position to carry out the same functions as a man with both the eyes. He is many times better than a person having defective vision in both eyes. I will otherwise also put it that a man with 6/6 eyes sight have any times better his vision as compared to 6/9 or 6/12 and, therefore, taking the normal meaning of the word 'vision' and considering the language used in the Admission Rules no distinction can be drawn between one eyed man and both eyed man. It is further borne out that he became blind by left eye as a result of traumatic injection which unfortunately made him handicapped. It was negligence of the Doctor who injected wrongly resulting in the misfortune of the petitioner and this is not required to be multiplied by Academicians i.e. members of the Admission Board. Blessed are not those who help the handicaps but blessed are those who have human heart to realise miseries of the handicaps. The petitioner in this case has not approached the members of the Admission Board to seek their mercy or to be pitied, on the contrary his is a challenge, "don't pity me. I have a flame in me. I have come for a right and reject me if you find no flame." He has a flame in him. He has read in adverse conditions and made himself fully capable of competing with others even better placed and did qualify for admission to the Engineering course His flame should not have been permitted to be extinguished in the manner, the Admission Board has done. He has read in adverse conditions and made himself fully capable of competing with others even better placed and did qualify for admission to the Engineering course His flame should not have been permitted to be extinguished in the manner, the Admission Board has done. He has vision and a perfect vision and let not opacity be placed in his way. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Umesh Kumar v. State of Haryana and Anr : AIR 1989 P&H 130 where a candidate with power glasses above 2.5 was refused admission and the question of interpretation on a similar clause came up for decision of the Court. Learned Judge held as under:- "We now live in 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 arc 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. No reason has been assigned by respondent 2 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". I am in agreement with the aforesaid judgment though it is little different yet in principle it does apply. 6. This writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to admit the petitioner to the Engineering course in the speciality he would otherwise have been entitled to on merits. One seat has already been kept vacant for him under the orders of this court, dated 22.8.1990 and he should be admitted to the said vacant seat. The petitioner shall also be entitled to the costs of this writ petition which is fixed at Rs. One seat has already been kept vacant for him under the orders of this court, dated 22.8.1990 and he should be admitted to the said vacant seat. The petitioner shall also be entitled to the costs of this writ petition which is fixed at Rs. 1,000/-.Petition allowed with costs. *******