ORDER : 1. Applications for exemption from filing C/C of the impugned judgment, permission to file additional documents/facts/annexure and exemption from filing affidavit are allowed. 2. Leave granted. 3. Colour blindness is not a form of blindness at all, but a deficiency in the way you see colour. This medical condition makes it difficult to distinguish certain colours such as blue and yellow or red and green. It is stated that an estimated 8% of male population and less than 1% of the female population have red and green colour deficiency being most common form of colour blindness 1 [Colur blindness by Gretchyn Bailey, Annexure A-11 of Additional Documents, Vol. II]. The lis in the present case arises from a fundamental question whether a person who is colour blind is precluded from pursuing a course for Diploma in Editing in the Film and Television Institute of India, Pune (FTII)/respondent No. 1. 4. The appellant applied for the Diploma in Film Editing course for the admission to session 2015 and met all the rigorous requirements for a selection process for three years post graduate diploma course in editing. We are informed that about 10 candidates for each discipline are selected as against almost 2000 students applying for the same. 5. Pursuant to the selection, the appellant was examined by a doctor of respondent No. 1 on 28.07.2016 and was found that he was colour blind in both eyes (red, green, blue) to the extent of more than 60%. The travails of the appellant began thereafter. The FTII/respondent No. 1 made an order canceling his admission based on the aforementioned medical examination by decision dated 01.08.2016. This in turn was based on the FTII Entrance Examination Rules which bars colour blind students from being admitted in respondent No. 1, Institute for the Editing course. The relevant embargoes are contained in Rule 13 of the Rules which inter-alia debars the candidates. The Rule stipulates that the FTII provides audio-visual training but it is not possible to offer admission to the candidates having 100% physical disability. Apart from that, certain courses are found not suitable for certain categories of disability and course in editing is one of them specified for visually handicapped. The Rule also stipulates that candidates suffering from colour blindness are not suitable for those courses which are not suitable for visually handicapped candidates. 6. Apart from that, certain courses are found not suitable for certain categories of disability and course in editing is one of them specified for visually handicapped. The Rule also stipulates that candidates suffering from colour blindness are not suitable for those courses which are not suitable for visually handicapped candidates. 6. The appellant filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court which was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 07.03.2017 predicated on a reasoning that since the appellant was colour blind in both eyes to the extent of 60% and the experts decided that colour blind candidates would not be eligible, it would not be appropriate to interfere with the opinion of the experts. 7. We may note that apparently two other colour blind students, one admitted in 2013 for a three year diploma in film editing had graduated but then apparently the experience with those candidates may have persuaded the FTII to make the said Rule. The challenge to the Rule was laid only when the appellant was detected with the problem and not earlier. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant at the inception sought to rely upon the principle of the “Reasonable Accommodation” which underlines the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 with an objective of recognizing the worth of every person as an equal member of the society. The endeavour is to foster a condition on which every individual can evolve according to the capacities as a key element protecting, respecting and facilitating individual autonomy. He seeks to refer to the observations in Vikash Kumar vs. Union Public Service Commission and Others, (2021) 5 SCC 370 where this principle of “reasonable accommodation” has been discussed. This argument is based on the approach which a Court should adopt even though the present case is not one of seeking any special privilege or reservation under the said Act. This is a case where a person who has been selected amongst all the candidates on merit alone and has been debarred from admission on account of colour blindness. 10. Learned counsel also referred to the legal view propounded qua the aspect of candidates with colour vision deficiency in Pranay Kumar Podder vs. State of Tripura and Others, (2017) 13 SCC 351 . 10. Learned counsel also referred to the legal view propounded qua the aspect of candidates with colour vision deficiency in Pranay Kumar Podder vs. State of Tripura and Others, (2017) 13 SCC 351 . A candidate who suffered from partial colour blindness was declared ineligible to take admission to the MBBS course. It is in this factual context that the issue was debated. On conspectus of the requirement performing the intricate task of a doctor, this Court opined that the Medical Council of India (MCI) should constitute a Committee of experts to review the situation and take note of the prevalent conditions of the study and practice and suggests changes for adoption in the medical course keeping in view the international practices. The Committee was so set up and the report was submitted to this Court. The Committee opined that the colour vision deficiency has to be looked in the context of visual deficiency and was perceived not to be an embargo. In view of the report the counsel for the MCI offered that the person suffering from colour vision deficiency will be permitted by the MCI to undertake the examination and be admitted to MBBS course, however, with certain guidelines being framed in accordance with the report of the Committee for controlling the specialty and super-specialty courses as far as this category is concerned. 11. In the context of the aforesaid proceedings, learned counsel contends that when admission can be made even to the MBBS course then there is no reason why it should not be permitted for the diploma in editing course. 12. Learned counsel also referred to the expert opinion of the Admission Committee of the FTII to point out that this Admission Committee cannot be confused with an expert body for the purposes of determining the suitability of an individual affected with colour visual deficiency to pursue the course of an Editor. It is his submission that they were not equipped to examine and appreciate the impact of colour blindness on the role of a film Editor inasmuch as indispensable experts like a Film Director, an Ophthalmologist, etc. were never taken on Board. 13. It is his submission that they were not equipped to examine and appreciate the impact of colour blindness on the role of a film Editor inasmuch as indispensable experts like a Film Director, an Ophthalmologist, etc. were never taken on Board. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant also drew our attention to the note of arguments filed by him where additional material has been placed on record to submit that “Christopher Nolan” is a world acclaimed film maker and director even though he is colour blind. He has also sought to place on record opinions of successful FTII trained video editors of repute who won national award or otherwise recognized. Amongst the material placed on record, is the role of script supervisor in maintaining continuity, to contend that the person in charge of continuity on a film set is a script supervisor who must maintain a record of scenes shot and how they may have deviated from the original script. Script supervisor also creates continuity report and works with an assistant to make sure that continuity is maintained. This submission is in context of material placed on record with the counter affidavit where the respondents have sought to show how a difference in perspective would be apparent to the eye between a person who may have colour blindness as against a person who does not have and it is their submission that the task would become extremely difficult. 14. In the context of the aforesaid submissions, the stand of the respondents before us is that every endeavour is made by the Institute to give encouragement and facilitation to persons with some disability but it is certain courses only which are taken outside the purview of admissions where colour blindness is concerned, as the job itself would be affected. It is also sought to be contended that the person planning the course is best suitable to determine the same. 15. On conspectus of the aforesaid, we are of the view that the appropriate course to follow would be the one which was followed in the case of a Doctor for admission to the MBBS course by this Court earlier as it would not be appropriate for this Court to take a call on whether the colour blindness would be an aspect which would be an impediment in going through the course. We may notice that this is not a case of getting secured or Government employment. The person will have to work in the field and his performance would be judged by the persons who have to take work from him. What has to be seen is whether the course curriculum provided for the diploma in Editing can be successfully completed by the appellant who suffers from colour blindness. 16. We, therefore, proceed to discuss the aspect as to what should be the composition of the Committee. In view of the submissions, the conclusion is that the Committee should consist of a Film Director, Colourist, script supervisor, Film Editor, Ophthalmologist with specialization in colour blindness and the Head of the Department of the respondents/the person who is the course content creator for this course. Apart from this, the presence of a lawyer in the Committee as earlier would be useful. 17. We also agree with the suggestion of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Film Director and Film Editor should be persons who are younger and more contemporary in their dealing and successful in their fields. 18. We accordingly constitute a Committee of the following: (i) Film Director Mr. Ravi K. Chandran (ii) Colourist Mr. Swapnil Patole (iii) Script Supervisor Ms. Shubha Ramachandra (iv) Film Editor Mr. Akkineni Sreekar Prasad (v) Course Creator/HOD, Editing Mr. Rajasekharan (vi) Ophthalmologist Dr. Jignesh Taswala [Vitreo Retinal Surgeon, President, Maharashtra Opthalmological Society Darshan Eye Care Centre, B/8, Om Mahavir Society, Behind Yerwada Bus stop, Irani Market, Yerwada, Pune] (vii) Mr. Shoeb Alam, Advocate who was the counsel in the Committee appointed in Praney Kumar Poddar vs. State of Tripura and Others (supra). 19. In view of passage of almost 6 years, we have put to learned counsel for the respondents that he would have to go through a process of rigors of selection anew but the effect of our order would be to remove any impediment in the future on account of colour blindness, if the Committee so opines. To facilitate a more comprehensive exercise, the role of the Committee would be to opine on the aspect of the colour blindness qua all the courses for which it is perceived as a disqualification. 20. We would expect the Committee to give its report within three months. 21. To facilitate a more comprehensive exercise, the role of the Committee would be to opine on the aspect of the colour blindness qua all the courses for which it is perceived as a disqualification. 20. We would expect the Committee to give its report within three months. 21. The respondent No. 1 will bear the expenses for to & fro travel by air and stay expenses in case of visit of persons for the meeting and will pay appropriate honorarium to the members of the Committee for each meeting. The meeting can also be virtual. 22. List for directions on 15.03.2022 in miscellaneous matters.