JUDGMENT L. MOHAPATRA, J. — The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to admit her in first year Degree Course in Medicine in any of the Government Medical Colleges of Orissa and quashing the decision of the Admission Sub-Committee dated 24.7.2000 denying admission to the petitioner to the aforesaid course. 2. Case of the petitioner is that she has passed Indian School Certificate Examination in the year 1996 with a little more than 83% of marks and come out successful in Annual Higher Secondary Education, 1998 having secured 74% marks in aggregate. Having the requisite qualification she submitted an application to the Admission Sub-Committee, Joint Entrance Examination,(E&M), 2000 for admission to first year Degree Course in Medicine and she was allotted Roll No. UME-56339. In the said Joint Entrance Examination she secured 15th position in the merit list for admission into medical stream. As per the provision of the pro¬spectus the petitioner was required to obtain medical certificate in a prescribed proforma from registered Government Medical Officer not below the rank of Sub-Divisional Medical Officer and the said certificate was required to be produced at the time of counselling. Accordingly, the petitioner obtained medical certif¬icate from Dr. B.D. Sahu of Sambalpur and produced the same at the time of counselling which was held on 24.7.2000. However, the Admission Sub-Committee did not accept the medical report on the ground that the chest measurement as indicated in the medical certificate falls short of 1 cm than the prescribed measurement and only on the said ground denied admission of the petitioner in the Medicine Stream. 3. Counter has been filed by the opposite parties 2 and 3 stating that the petitioner was rightly denied to participate in the counselling due to non-fulfilment of the minimum medical requirement provided under Clause 2.11 of the Information Bro¬chure. There is no mala fide or malice in the conduct of the Sub-Committee in refusing admission to the petitioner and the ques¬tion of mala fide does not arise as refusal for admission was only on the ground that the petitioner did not fulfil the re¬quired medical standard. Reliance has been placed on various clauses of the Information Brochure and it is stated that since the petitioner failed to fulfil the required medical standard she was rightly denied admission. 4. Reliance has been placed on various clauses of the Information Brochure and it is stated that since the petitioner failed to fulfil the required medical standard she was rightly denied admission. 4. Shri R. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the Information Brochure has raised the following points : (i) Clause 2.11 of the Information Brochure prescribes the medical requirements and as per the said clause an applicant should have a good physique and stamina to take professional degree and there is no justification to fix a particular standard for the same such as measurement of chest which has got nothing to do with the capacity of a student to undertake the course in medicine. (ii) If physically handicapped students are eligible for admission into Medicine Stream there is no reason as to why the petitioner should be denied admission on the ground that she runs short of 1 cm in chest measurement. (iii) This medical standard as enumerated in Clause 2.11 of the Information Brochure was not there in the year 1998 and for the first time it was introduced in 1999 and there is no reason as to why such standard should be fixed or strictly followed when a candidate is found physically fit with the required physique and stamina to undertake the Course. 5. Shri R.K. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Joint En¬trance Examination Sub-Committee submitted that it cannot be said that there is unreasonableness in fixing particular physical standard for admission into the medical course even though it was not there earlier, and once the medical standards are fixed if person does not satisfy the said standard he/she has to be re¬fused admission on that ground. The High Court in its jurisdic¬tion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot change the standard prescribed by the authority. 6. Clause 2.11 of the Information Brochure, J.E.E. (E.&M.) 2000 Orissa runs as follows : “2.11 - Medical Requirements : Study for profession degree demands good physique and stami¬na. An applicant who suffers from any organic defect or does not have sound health so as to bear the strain of the course which may be heightened in his/her professional life would be well advised not to take up the Engineer/Medical Profession. An applicant who suffers from any organic defect or does not have sound health so as to bear the strain of the course which may be heightened in his/her professional life would be well advised not to take up the Engineer/Medical Profession. The prescribed physical standards for admission are the following: Height : Not less than 150 cm of male candidates and not less than 140 cm for female candidates. Weight : 40 kg. minimum (for both sexes) Chest Measurement: Not less than 70 cm with satisfactory limits of expansion and contraction. Heart and lungs : No abnormality. Vision : Normal in both eyes. In case of defective vision it must be corrected to 6/9 in both eyes or 6/6 in the better eye. Candidates taking admission in Mining Engineer must be free from colour blindness, defective vision and should not use spec¬tacles of power above 3D. Physically handicapped candidates are also to satisfy the above vision requirements. Hearing : Normal. Where defective, it must be corrected. Physique : Good general physique. There should be no history of bronchial asthma, mental diseases or epileptic fits. Hernia, Hydrocele : Presence of any of these is a temporary and Piles disqualification to be rectified before joining. xxx xxx xxx xxx 7. Though medical requirements demand a good physique and stamina, standards have been fixed with regard to height, weight, chest measurement, vision, hearing, physique etc. to bring it within the term good physique and stamina. If certain minimum standards are fixed in relation to height, weight, chest measure¬ment, etc. so as to bring a candidate within the term good phy¬sique and stamina, it cannot be said that the same in unreasona¬ble. So far as the point raised by Sri. R. Mohapatra that these medical standards had not been fixed till 1998 and only in 1999 the standard was introduced in the Information Brochure without any reason, has been answered in para-19 of the counter. So far as the point raised by Sri. R. Mohapatra that these medical standards had not been fixed till 1998 and only in 1999 the standard was introduced in the Information Brochure without any reason, has been answered in para-19 of the counter. It is stated in para-19 of the counter filed by the opposite parties 2 and 3 that Policy Planning Body JEE sits once in a year which is convened by Commissioner-cum-Secretary Industries Department, Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Health Department, Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Education Department, Vice-Chancellors of different Universities of the State to which the Medical and Engineering Colleges are affiliated, Director of Medical Education and Train¬ing, Orissa, Director of Technical Education and Training, Orissa, Principals of all Government Medical Engineering Colleges of the State and last year Chairman, JEE are the members. In the afore¬said Policy Planning Body the policies regarding reservation, eligibility, medical requirements, syllabus and other procedures regarding examination and admission matters are decided. There¬fore, the aforesaid medical requirements mentioned under Clause 2.11 of the Information Brochure has been decided by the Policy Planning Body JEE which is applied equally to all candidates similarly placed. In view of what has been stated in para-19 of the counter, I also cannot agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no reason for introduction of such medical standard for admission into Medicine Stream. 8. Next question is as to whether this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can interfere and change the medical requirements as mentioned in the Information Brochure. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision reported in AIR 1989 Punjab and Haryana 130 (Umesh Kumar v. State of Haryana and another) where it is held that 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 into the Engineering Course. Relying on the said decision Shri R. Mohapa¬tra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the peti¬tioner is only running short of one cm in chest measurement therefore this medical requirement could have been ignored as it does not affect in any way in taking the Medicine Course. Relying on the said decision Shri R. Mohapa¬tra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the peti¬tioner is only running short of one cm in chest measurement therefore this medical requirement could have been ignored as it does not affect in any way in taking the Medicine Course. Reliance is placed in a decision reported in AIR 1989 S.C. 1568 (Meenakshi Malik v. University of Delhi and others) wherein the Apex Court held that where a candidate seeking admission in one of the Medical Colleges in Delhi was compelled to leave India to a foreign country by reason of the posting of his parents by the Government to such foreign country, was denied admission for not fulfilling the condition that he should have received the last two years of education in a school in Delhi, the condition was unreasonable when applied in the case of candidates like the one in question. The condition with regard to qualifications for admission to a medical college in Delhi providing that the last two years of education should be in a school in Delhi should be construed as not applicable to students who have to leave India with their parents on the parents being posted to a foreign country by the Government. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a decision reported in AIR 1999 SC 3378 (Madan Singh Shekhawat v. Union of India and others). In the said decision reference has been made to a decision reported in (1949) 2 All E.R. 155 (Sea¬ford Court Estates Ltd. v. Asher) where it was held that “when a defect appears a Judge cannot simply fold his hands and blame the draftsman. He must set to work on the constructive task of find¬ing the intention of Parliament, and then he must supplement the written word so as to give ‘force and life’ to the intention of the legislature. A judge should ask himself the question how, if the makers of the Act had themselves come across this ruck in the texture of it, they should have straightened it out? He must then do as they would have done. A Judge must not alter the material of which the Act is woven, but he can and should iron out the creases.” 9. He must then do as they would have done. A Judge must not alter the material of which the Act is woven, but he can and should iron out the creases.” 9. On the other hand Shri R.K. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the opposite parties 2 and 3 has relied upon a decision reported in AIR 1984 Supreme Court 186 (Krishna Priya Ganguly etc. etc. v. University of Lucknow and others) where the Apex Court has held that the conditions regarding putting in two years work in department concerned dispensed with by High Court while granting admission was not correct. The High Court cannot re-write or relax rules. Reliance is also placed on a decision reported in 72 (1991) CLT 118 (Bibhasendu Mohanty and others v. The Chairman, Admission Sub-Committee and others) where this Court held that selection of candidates for admission is vested in J.E.E. which comprises of experienced persons in the filed of technical education and the decision of the Committee is entitled to great weight. It is not for the Court to lay down what should be the principles for selection of candidates for admission in the institutions imparting technical education. The jurisdiction of the Court in such matters lies within a narrow compass. 10. Clause 2.11 of the Information Brochure prescribes that study for professional degree demands good physique and stamina. It is clarified in the said clause that an applicant who suffers from any organic defect or does not have sound health so as to bear the strain of the course which may be heightened in his/her professional life will be well advised not to take up the Engi¬neering/Medical course. It was submitted on behalf of the oppo¬site parties that to come within the term ‘good physique and stamina’ one must have physical standard as prescribed in the said clause. An affidavit has been filed by the opposite party No. 3 wherein the medical certificate produced by the petitioner has been annexed as Annexure-B/1. Said medical certificate is in the prescribed proforma and has been issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Sambalpur. Except chest measurement the petitioner fulfils all other requirements as prescribed under Clause 2.11 so far as chest measurement is concerned, she runs short of only 1 cm as the prescribed measurement is 70 cm and the petitioner’s chest measurement comes to 69 cm. Except chest measurement the petitioner fulfils all other requirements as prescribed under Clause 2.11 so far as chest measurement is concerned, she runs short of only 1 cm as the prescribed measurement is 70 cm and the petitioner’s chest measurement comes to 69 cm. The Chief Medical Officer who had granted certificate in the remarks column has specifically en¬dorsed that the candidate is found fit for Engineering/Medical studies. If the J.E.E. was so stringent about fulfilling the prescribed medical standard, there was no necessity of obtaining an endorsement in the remarks column with regard to fitness of a student for admission into Engineering/Medical studies. Had it been so, any candidate running short of any requirement pre¬scribed in the proforma should be denied admission without the opinion of the medical officer who granted medical certificate. If a student not having the prescribed standard of vision, can be admitted into medical course, as such defect can be cured by use of glasses, there is no reason why such relaxation cannot be extended to a candidate who runs short of only 1 cm in chest measurement and certified by a doctor to be fit for admission into Engineering/Medical study. It is not desirable on the part of the Admission Sub-Committee to deny admission mechanically without applying their mind to the effect of some one not ful¬filling to the required standard. This is a case where the peti¬tioner has secured 15th position in the merit list and fulfills all the standard prescribed under Clause 2.11 except chest meas¬urement. The Chief Medical Officer, in my opinion, rightly certi¬fied that the petitioner is fit to undertake Engineering/Medical studies. If the Admission Sub-Committee had only doubt it should have constituted a Board and sought for opinion as to whether the petitioner can take medical course with the medical standard she has. Instead of doing so, she had been denied admission into the Medical course only on the ground that she runs short of 1 cm in chest measurement. 11. I need not go to the third point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if physically handicapped candi¬date can be allowed admission there is no reason to deny admis¬sion to the petitioner. 11. I need not go to the third point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if physically handicapped candi¬date can be allowed admission there is no reason to deny admis¬sion to the petitioner. I am of the view that it was the duty of the Admission Sub-Committee to get the petitioner examined by Medical Board for opinion as to whether she has good physique and stamina to undertake the course. Such departure from the pre¬scribed medical standard can be made in case where Admission Sub-Committee is of the view that any one not fulfilling the pre¬scribed standard with regard to height, weight, chest measure¬ment, vision, hearing, physique otherwise possesses a good phy¬sique and stamina to undertake the course. In such cases, the candidate should be examined by a Medical Board. 12. I, therefore, dispose of the writ application directing the opposite parties to constitute a Medical Board and get the petitioner examined by the Board within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the petitioner is found to be in possession of good physique and stamina as certified by the Chief Medical Officer in the prescribed certificate issued in favour of the petitioner, she should be given admission into the Medical stream. The entire exercise should be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. This view of mine is derived from the fact that the proforma prescribed for issue of certificate also provides for opinion of the doctor issuing such certificate. It was never intended to ignore such opinion, otherwise such a column would not have been there in the proforma. This view of mine is to be applied only in exceptional cases such as the present one. Application disposed of.