State Council of Educational Research & Training v. Ravi Dwivedi

judgment.

¶9So far the decision of the Supreme Court in All Kerala Parents Assn. Hearing Imp. & Anr.(supra), which is relied upon, is concerned, a bare perusal of the same would also indicate that the Supreme Court in the said decision held that the High Court was wholly in error in construing Section 39 of the Act to mean LPA No.6/2008 page No. 8 of 10 that it relates to reservation in Government employment and not in relation to admission of students with disabilities in the Government institutions as well as educational institutions receiving aid from the Government. In the said decision it was held that Section 39 of the Act deals with the reservation of seats for persons with disabilities in Government educational institutions as well as educational institutions receiving aid from the Government, and necessarily therefore the provisions thereof must be complied with. In the said decision findings of the High Court in relation to Section 39 of the Act to mean that it relates to reservation in Government employment and not in relation to admission of students with disabilities were set aside. The facts in respect of which the said decision was rendered were in different context and are clearly distinguishable. Here is a case where the reserved seats for students with disabilities are being ordered to be distributed for all the categories as is being provided for under the provisions of Section 33 of the Act for the persons with disability of hearing impairment are also ordered to be accommodated.

¶10In our considered opinion, the decision which is rendered LPA No.6/2008 page No. 9 of 10 by the learned Single Judge in no manner is contradictory or in conflict with the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court. We find no reason to take a different view than what is taken by the learned Single Judge. The appeal has no merit and is dismissed. No costs. CHIEF JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL, J FEBRUARY 05, 2008 Rohtash LPA No.6/2008 page No. 10 of 10

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 6/2008 % Date of decision: 05.02.2008 STATE COUNCIL OF EDUCATIONAL ..... Appellant RESEARCH & TRAINING Through:Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate versus RAVI DWIVEDI ..... Respondent Through:Nemo CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL 1. Whether reporters of local papers be allowed to see the judgment ? yes 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? yes DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, CJ: (oral) 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 21st November, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent herein. The respondent filed a writ petition in this Court seeking a direction to the appellant to admit him to a two year educational diploma course, i.e., DCET. Counsel appearing for the State points out that the said course is called the "ETT". Be that as it may, it can be stated that the said diploma course is being conducted in nine institutes run by the Government and ten privately managed ones with a total of 1640 LPA No.6/2008 page No. 1 of 10 seats in all. A prospectus was also issued by the State Council of Educational Research & Training wherein it was mentioned that 15% of the total seats are reserved for the candidates domiciled other than in Delhi. In view of the provisions of The Persons with Disabilities(Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995(hereinafter called as the "Act"), three per cent seats are reserved for physically handicapped candidates, under which three categories of handicaps/disabilities are envisaged:- (i) Orthopaedically Handicapped; (ii) Visual Handicapped; and (iii) Hearing Impairment. 2. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that there are 49 seats reserved for the disabled. The respondent applied for being considered under the disabled quota, assuming that one per cent out of three per cent in terms of the Clause II(3)(C) at Sl. No.4 would be reserved for candidates with hearing impairment. The respondent secured 50.02% marks. Since the respondent did not possess the cut off marks in the disabled category, he was denied admission. LPA No.6/2008 page No. 2 of 10 3. The respondent challenged the aforesaid policy of the appellant of not compartmentalizing the three per cent disability quota, enabling candidates suffering from different disabilities to avail of the benefit, so that each category could avail of such reservation. The appellant asserts that like Section 33, under Section 39 of the aforesaid Act, such compartmentalization of quota must be done and in support of the said contention reference was made to the provisions of Section 2(1)(I)(iv) of the Act, which defines "Hearing Impairment" as meaning "loss of sixty decibels or more in the better ear in the conversational range of frequencies". 4. Even before the learned Single Judge reference was made to the aforesaid Section 2(1) (I)(iv), Section 33 as also 39 and other provisions of the Act, which were perused by the learned Single Judge, and on a harmonious interpretation of all the provisions the learned Single Judge concluded that the appellant acted in violation of provisions of Section 33 of the Act in not suitably providing for admission to persons who are hearing impaired, like the respondent. Consequently, it was ordered that the appellant should admit the respondent to the course and in LPA No.6/2008 page No. 3 of 10 case no vacancy exists, or in the likelihood of his being unable to satisfy attendance norms, in case of his admission at this stage, he shall be admitted to the course for the next academic session 2008-2009. The aforesaid findings and conclusions are now challenged in this appeal which is filed by the State Counsel of Educational Research & Training contending, inter alia, that the interpretation given by the learned Single Judge to the provisions of Section 33 and 39 of the Act is erroneous. In suppo