K. Madhava Reddy, C.J.
1. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge allowing the writ petition and directing the respondents to provide forthwith admission to the writ petitioner into the first year B. E./B. Tech. Course in the academic year 1983-84. R. 5 of theRules of Admission which is relevant read as follows :-
'5. Physically handicapped:-
Only Orthopaedically handicapped candidates, supported by a certificate of a competent Medical Officer.
The Principal of the College reserves the right to appoint a committee, if necessary, to decide the suitability of the candidate to pursue the course to which admission is sought and the decision of the committee shall be final. Selection will be made in order of merit from among the eligible candidates.'
2. It is common ground that the writ petitioner is an handicapped person and the certificate produced by him establishes that he is handicapped. His disability is assessed at 4 per cent. While the disability of another candidate is assessed at 30 percent. Even on this aspect there is no diapute. It is also common ground that the Writ Petitioner is high up in the order of merit as against the other handicapped candidate whose disability is assessed at 30 per cent, and is allotted a seat. In other words the candidate who had 30 per cent, disability was given weightage and was given administration ignoring the claims of the petitioner only because the petitoner's disability was assessed at 4 per cent, which is much less than that of the other candidate, although he was more meritorious. A reading of the above rule clearly discloses that among orthopaedically handicapped cnadidates declared eligible, there is no further classification on the basis of the degree of disability. Once candidates are eligible to be considered under this vategory being orthopaedically handicapped, the rule enjoins that the selection will be made 'in the order of merit from among the eligible candidates:. It does not permit giving any eightage on the degree of disability and thus after the order of merit and and pick up more orthopaedically handicapped candidate in preference to another orthopaedically handicapped candidate who is more meritorious. Mr. S. Venkata Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for the University, however, contended that the Principal is given a right to constitute a committee, if necessary, to decide the suitability of the candidate to pursue the course to which admission is sought and the decision of the committee shall be final. This, however does not in any way affect the application of he rule that among the orthopaedically handicapped candidates only merit should be the criterion in selection the candidates so long as they are suitable. It is nobody's case that any of these two candidates is not suitable to pursue the course. The mere fact that the Principal of College is given a right to appoint a committee to decide the suitability of the candidate does not give him a further right to give any weightage to any particular candidate so as to alter the order of merit. Whether the percentage of the disability is less or more, if the candidate is not suitable he will be excluded form consideration. But so long as he is not so excluded and is eligible to be considered under this category, the order of merit alone must govern the selection. That is what the learned single Judge has held and we do not see any reason to disagree with that conclusion. This writ appeal is therefore dismissed. No costs.
3. Appeal dismissed.