Skip to content


Mahendrakumar Shivaram Prapati Vs. State of Gujarat - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtGujarat High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1985)1GLR273
AppellantMahendrakumar Shivaram Prapati
RespondentState of Gujarat
Excerpt:
- - gandhi has also urged that for doing his clerical work, the petitioner can do it equally efficiently with one eye and therefore there is no handicap. for every act of nature, there is a good reason, although it may or may not be properly understood. it may be that the handicapped person may be able to adjust himself to his new situation and carry on his normal work as fully and efficiently as may be possible in the circumstances......with that eye. the eye-ball being practically white, he has been using what is known as cosmetic contact lens to prevent the ugly look of the face.2. mr. v.m. dhotre for mr. s.v. raju, the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner being blind in one eye, he should be considered as a handicapped person. according to him, the fact that the petitioner uses cosmetic contact lens, should make no difference because that does not give him any vision. mr. m.b. gandhi, the learned assistant government pleader has urged that although the petitioner is blind in one eye, he can see with the other eye and carry on his normal work and therefore according to him, the petitioner is not a handicapped person. mr. gandhi has also urged that for doing his clerical work, the.....
Judgment:

A.S. Qureshi, J.

1. The petitioner herein challenges the order No. CLK-1182-3751-D, dated 23rd February 1984, whereby the petitioner was held to be not a handicapped person and hence he was considered not eligible to get the benefit available to the handicapped person in respect of passing the examination for a clerical job. The petitioner's case is that he is totally blind in one eye inasmuch as his left eye has corneal ulcer and therefore, he is not able to see anything with that eye. The eye-ball being practically white, he has been using what is known as Cosmetic Contact Lens to prevent the ugly look of the face.

2. Mr. V.M. Dhotre for Mr. S.V. Raju, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner being blind in one eye, he should be considered as a handicapped person. According to him, the fact that the petitioner uses cosmetic contact lens, should make no difference because that does not give him any vision. Mr. M.B. Gandhi, the learned Assistant Government Pleader has urged that although the petitioner is blind in one eye, he can see with the other eye and carry on his normal work and therefore according to him, the petitioner is not a handicapped person. Mr. Gandhi has also urged that for doing his clerical work, the petitioner can do it equally efficiently with one eye and therefore there is no handicap.

3. The argument of Mr. Gandhi is obviously fallacious. Although a person may be able to see with one eye, but it is not the same thing as seeing with both the eyes. The nature in its wisdom has thought it necessary to provide two eyes. If one eye was sufficient, the nature would not have thought it fit to provide two eyes. The nature has done nothing useless or in vain. For every act of nature, there is a good reason, although it may or may not be properly understood. The obvious reason for providing two eyes is to give a sense of dimension apart from other reasons and therefore the loss of one eye is definitely a handicap. It is not very difficult to appreciate that the loss of any limb of human body debilitates to a certain extent. It may be that the handicapped person may be able to adjust himself to his new situation and carry on his normal work as fully and efficiently as may be possible in the circumstances. But that does not mean that the person is not handicapped.

4. In this case, there was some doubt regarding the vision of the left eye especially because the medical certificate, which the petitioner had submitted to the respondent and has been produced by Mr. Gandhi before this Court from the original file, shows that the petitioner was using cosmetic contact lens, which give an impression that by using the contact lens, the vision may have been restored or improved. Hence, the petitioner who is present in the court, has been directed to remove the said contact lens. On its removal, the eye-ball appears to be grey in colour and of smaller size than the normal one. It also becomes clear that the so called contact lens is merely an ornamental attachment to give a defective eye a somewhat natural look. It is also noticed that on the removal of the cosmetic contact lens, the face has a slightly ugly or un-pleasant look, and therefore, to avoid the ugliness, the cosmetic contact lens is being used. The medical certificate is very clear on the point that the vision in right eye is normal described as 6/6, whereas in left eye there is no vision at all. It is therefore held that the petitioner has only one eye and that he is a handicapped person because of the total loss of vision in another eye.

5. The petitioner has appeared for a clerical examination, where he has secured 75% marks. If he is to be treated as a handicapped person, be requires 74% marks for passing. But if he is treated as not a handicapped person, he has to secure 80% marks for passing. In this case, the petitioner is held to be a handicapped person and therefore he requires 74% marks for passing. As he has secured 75% marks, he is entitled to be declared pass being a handicapped person. It is hoped that the authorities will do the needful as soon as possible with regard his appointment as a clerk in the light of what has been decided in this matter.

6. In the result, the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //