Madras High Court: A writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a declaration that the Standard Operating Procedure (‘SOP’) for All India Sainik School Admission Counselling (‘AISSAC’), insofar as it prescribed the eye standards of the SOP for admission to Class VI, was null and void in respect of the petitioner. The petitioner had also sought direction to admit him in Class VI at Sainik School, Udumalpet, Tiruppur District.
The Single Judge Bench of G.K.Ilanthiraiyan, J. said that the petitioner, having accepted the SOP for AISSAC and having appeared for the entrance examination, could not subsequently challenge the SOP after receipt of the medical report. It was further held that the provisions of the Right to Education Act and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act were not applicable to the Sainik school, since it was administered under the control of the Sainik School Society and the Ministry of Defence. The Court noted that such schools had been established with the specific purpose of acting as feeder institutes for the National Defence Academy and the Indian Naval Academy. Accordingly, the Court found no infirmity or illegality in the SOP for AISSAC 2025 and held that the writ petition was devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed
Background
The petitioner had applied for admission to Class VI at Sainik School, Amaravathi Nagar, Udumalpet, Tiruppur District. He had appeared for the entrance examination and secured 227 out of 300 marks, which was well within the cut-off for the Scheduled Caste category. By communication dated 27-06-2025, the Sainik School had directed him to appear before the Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore, for medical fitness verification. The medical board had declared him unfit under Eye Standard-II. On his request for review, he was referred to the Military Hospital, Chennai, where the earlier medical findings were confirmed.
The petitioner had argued that the rejection was not on grounds of ineligibility but solely on medical fitness. It was submitted that the petitioner’s vision defect of 6/36 was outside the prescribed standards, and such rejection violated Article 21 of the Constitution as well as Sections 3, 4, and 16 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. He had further contended that the prescription of eye standards in the SOP was discriminatory and liable to be struck down.
On the other hand, the respondents had contended that all Sainik Schools were administered under the Sainik Schools Society and the Ministry of Defence, functioning as feeder institutions for the National Defence Academy and Indian Naval Academy. The schools required strict compliance with medical fitness norms, including ocular standards, to ensure candidates’ suitability for future military service. The respondents had further stated that the Right to Education Act and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, did not apply to such institutions.
Analysis and decision
The Court observed that Sainik Schools had been established with the primary objective of grooming students for future roles as military officers, with emphasis on both mental and physical readiness. It noted that these institutions functioned as feeder schools for the National Defence Academy and the Indian Naval Academy. Therefore, stringent medical standards, particularly concerning ocular health, had been mandated by the Sainik Schools Society to ensure that candidates met the requisite physical criteria essential for military service.
The Court found that although the petitioner had secured sufficient marks, his admission remained subject to eligibility conditions, including medical fitness. The medical examinations conducted at Coimbatore Medical College Hospital and subsequently at the Military Hospital, Chennai, had both declared him unfit. His candidature had, therefore, been rightly rejected by the respondents as per the SOP for AISSAC 2025.
The Court further observed that, having accepted the SOP at the time of applying for admission and appearing in the entrance examination, the petitioner could not subsequently challenge its validity after receiving an adverse medical report.
It was held that the SOP prescribing eye standards for admission was neither illegal nor discriminatory, given the objective of Sainik Schools to train students for defence services. The Court concluded that the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and the Right to Education Act were not applicable in the present case.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed as being devoid of merits.
[M.R.Yajith Krishna v Union of India, W.P.No.29225 of 2025, decided on 22-09-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner: Mr. R.Saseetharan
For Respondents: Mr. K.Ramanamoorthy, Senior Panel Counsel
Buy Constitution of India HERE
