Soliciting Multiple Expert Reports Creates Confusion & Chaos: Karnataka HC Denies Relief To Student Seeking Admission Under Visually-Impaired Quota
The Karnataka High Court has refused relief to a 19-year-old girl who claimed to be visually impaired beyond 40% and sought a direction to the Karnataka Examination Authority to accept her candidature under the visually impaired quota.A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil dismissed the petition filed by Disha Bhat who had sought to void the Ocular...
The Karnataka High Court has refused relief to a 19-year-old girl who claimed to be visually impaired beyond 40% and sought a direction to the Karnataka Examination Authority to accept her candidature under the visually impaired quota.
A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil dismissed the petition filed by Disha Bhat who had sought to void the Ocular Examination Report and accept the Report furnished by the Government Hospital, Dharwad. The Ocular examination report stated that the petitioner's Visual Disability is 0% (Zero Percent) in view of 6/18 Vision in both eyes.
The bench noted that the Ocular Examination report is prepared after examining the petitioner as per the protocol. There is no allegation of malafide or the like and the three Doctors, who are Members of the Collegium, are experts in the field of ophthalmology.
Following this the court said “Judges who ordinarily lack such expertise have to show due difference to the learned and experienced, in the respective domains. The impugned Report partakes the character of expert opinion as contemplated under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.”
Rejecting the contention of the petitioner that pursuant to the order of this Court reports from other experts have been obtained and they support the version of visual disability, the court said, “Soliciting report after report at the hands of multiple experts would only create confusion & chaos in the litigation process and therefore is not desirable; buck has to stop somewhere and line has to be drawn as of necessity.”
Noting that the collegium of experts which has issued the impugned report enjoys statutory recognition as a designated body, the court said “ A Writ Court too in matters like this cannot run a race of opinions with the experts. An argument to the contrary if accepted would lay a wrong precedent that may breed more mischief outweighing the justice arguably due to the litigant.”
Appearance: Advocate Shivaraj S Balloli for Petitioner.
Government Advocate G.K Hiregoudar for R1.
Advocate Surabi Kulkarni FOR R2.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 401
Case Title: Disha Bhat AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.104218 OF 2024