Sambhavana vs Delhi University & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 5276 Del

*         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                                    Date of decision: 17.12.2009

+                               WP (C) No.16258 of 2006

SAMBHAVANA                                                 ...PETITIONER
                                Through:        Ms. Ritu Kumar, Advocate.

                                          Versus

DELHI UNIVERSITY & ORS.                                       ...RESPONDENTS
                   Through:                     Ms. Maninder Acharya, Advocate
                                                for Delhi University.
                                                Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Adv. for R-2.
                                                Ms. Beenashaw Soni, Advocate
                                                for R-3, 22 & 56.
                                                Dr. Aurobindo Ghose, Advocate
                                                for R-4, 12 & 79.
                                                Mr. Pawan Kumar Agarwal, Adv.
                                                for R-8, 24, 26, 27, 30, 34, 40, 52,
                                                57, 58 & 83.
                                                Ms. Manisha Singh, Adv. for R-13.
                                                Ms. Parul Sharma, Advocate
                                                for R-14 & 50.
                                                Mr. A.P.S. Ahluwalia, Adv. for R-
                                                19, 25, 43, 44, 61, 63, 64, 75 & 76.
                                                Mr. M.K. Singh, Adv. for R-23&81.
                                                Mr. N. Chaudhary & Ms. Sushma,
                                                Advocates for R-28 & 82.
                                                Mr. Rajesh & Mr. Rohit Singh,
                                                Advocates for R-29.
                                                Mr. R.P. Sharma, Adv. for R-31.
                                                Mr. Rajinder Dhawan & Ms. Shafali
                                                Dhawan, Advs. for R-33, 38, 65, 66,
                                                73 & 77.
                                                Mr. Navin Chawla & Mr. Sharath
                                                Sampath, Advs. for R-39.
                                                Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. for R-41.
                                                Mr. Prashant M., Advocate for R-53.
                                                Mr. Mamta Chandra, Adv. for R-55.
                                                Mr. Neeraj Chaudhary, Advocate
                                                for R-59 & 60.
                                                Mr. Anurag Mathur, Advocate
                                                for R-15, 83 & 84.
                                                Mr. Samar Bansal, Adv. for R-85.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
WP (C) No.16258 of 2006                                                          Page 1 of 7
 CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE

1.        Whether the Reporters of local papers
          may be allowed to see the judgment?                           No

2.        To be referred to Reporter or not?                            No

3.        Whether the judgment should be
          reported in the Digest?                                       No

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. (Oral)

1. The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has

been filed seeking directions against the respondent/Delhi

University and its affiliate colleges to fill up the backlog of

vacancies reserved for persons with disability within the meaning

of „The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection

of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995‟ (hereinafter referred to

as the said Act). It was brought to the notice of the Court that

despite directions, affiliate colleges were not filling up the

vacancies and violating the directions by recruiting and filling up

the posts with other candidates.

2. Directions were passed from time to time including putting a

restraint order on the affiliate colleges to fill up the vacancies from

the general candidates till such time as it is ensured that the

vacancies reserved under the said Act are filled up. A final

solution, however, was not emerging as repeatedly advertisements

were issued by affiliate colleges which were found to be defective

and recruitment under those advertisements were stayed. The

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

result was that no recruitment was taking place which naturally

affects the functioning of affiliate colleges.

3. We were of the considered view that it is necessary that University

and its affiliate colleges put their house in order and devise a

system for smooth functioning of the process of recruitment and

filling up of the backlog of vacancies.

4. We are happy to note that an endeavour has been made by the

University to sit down with the representatives of the affiliate

colleges as also other stakeholders including NGOs to work-out

the procedure and guidelines for such recruitment. These agreed

procedure/guidelines have been placed on record. We have heard

learned counsels for the parties today to fine-tune the procedure.

The modified procedure agreed to by all the parties is being set out

hereinafter:

"Procedure:-

(1) The University proposes to have a two member Committee consisting of Deputy Registrar (Colleges) and Deputy Registrar (Legal) who would be responsible for scrutinizing all the advertisements which colleges or any department of the University, propose to publish for filling the posts under 3% quota. The colleges will submit the proposed advertisement along with the 100 point reservation roster (prescribed by the Government of India) being maintained by them to this two member committee before advertising any post under 3% quota. The two members Committee would scrutinize the said advertisement as also the roster submitted by the College/the Department and after the scrutiny will approve the advertisement to be published. _____________________________________________________________________________________________

The Colleges/Department of the University will send the advertisement for publishing to the Newspaper after the same is approved and vetted by two member Committee of the University.

(2) After the advertisement is approved by the said two members Committee the colleges/University will also put the said advertisement on their website along with the application forms for the post.

(3) The colleges/University will ensure the application forms for the post are available on the website. The application forms will be given free of cost both through the website and through the office of the college/University. The colleges/University will be required to publish the advertisements prominently in the National Dailies as well as in the Employment News.

(4) The colleges will ensure that the advertisement published in the newspaper is under the proper head of "situations vacant, appointments, etc." and are clearly visible. (It has been observed that the advertisement published at the behest of the colleges often appear in the columns meant for Tenders, Contracts, etc. They often are in too fine a print to be clearly visible).

(5) A minimum of 21 days will be provided under the advertisement to the candidates to apply for the posts advertised. The colleges/Department of University will continue to make repeated attempts, at least half yearly, to fill the posts by publishing advertisements repeatedly till the posts are filled. All advertisements approved by 2 members committee will also be put on University website. (6) In respect of 23 colleges where the backlog under 3% quota has not been filled till date, it is stated that the said colleges will be required to submit the proposed advertisement along with the 200 point roster within 2 weeks in respect of _____________________________________________________________________________________________

the unfilled post under 3% quota. The colleges will carry out the special drive to fill the backlog post under 3% quota by submitting the proposed advertisement along with the roster to two member Committee within two weeks. Within two weeks thereafter, the two member Committee will scrutinize the advertisement proposed by the colleges, point out the defects if any and approve them and the advertisement will be published. In case of any defect the colleges will be given one week to remove the said defects and resubmit the advertisement to two member committee for approval.

(7) Within a maximum of three months, the defaulting colleges will complete the selection process in respect of the backlog post advertised by it and make appointments. (8) It is stated that the roster in most of the colleges and the University has started with Visually Handicapped (VH) category candidate followed by OH category candidate. In order to balance the interest of OH candidate, it was proposed that the roster in the 23 defaulting colleges which are yet to fill up the first reserved point under 3% quota, will start with OH category as one time measure. (9) Any person aggrieved by the contents of the advertisement approved by the two member committee may represent to the Registrar University of Delhi within ten days of its publication who will also hear him in person and take a decision on the representation within a maximum period of one month. Any aggrieved person who is not satisfied with the roster prepared by the colleges will have the right to satisfy himself/herself about the roster prepared by the college by inspecting the relevant record at the college premises including but not limited to roster and candidates file containing selection commission proceedings for such quota candidates."

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

5. The aforesaid procedure takes care of the complete controversy

involved in the petition. There are some apprehensions expressed

as to the consequences if affiliate colleges do not comply with

filling up of the backlog of the vacancies within the time

scheduled. To ensure compliance and as a deterrent to any such

deviation it is agreed that the interim directions passed against any

fresh recruitment in the other categories would continue to operate

till such time as the vacancies reserved under the said Act are

filled up as certified by the University.

6. In case there is any difficulty in implementation of the aforesaid

procedure, it is open to the aggrieved party to approach the

Registrar of the Delhi University for redressal.

7. The other aspect is the role of the UGC. Learned counsel for the

UGC has informed us that in view of certain observations made by

this Court the UGC has taken the initiative to call various

Universities including Delhi University and certain proposal has

been made. Insofar as the agreed action is concerned, the same is

as under:

"(1) There will be a three members Committee with the following composition:

(a) Representative of Chairman/Secretary, UGC -

Chairman of the Committee;

(b) Representative of the Commissioner for Persons with Disability - Member;

(c) Two academicians to be nominated by the Chairman, UGC.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

(2) The procedure as contained in Para-3 of the Status Note submitted by Delhi University will be adopted by the two proposed Committee with suitable modifications. (3) As a one-time measure all vacancies in respect of 3% reservation for disabled persons shall be filled up latest by 31st March 2010."

8. There was apparently some disagreement on the action to be taken

by the UGC as a consequence of failure of the University or

colleges to implement the reservation. Insofar as Delhi University

is concerned, we feel it would be appropriate that any violation

which occurs is treated as a misconduct of the concerned

Institution resulting in recommendatory action by the UGC against

the officer concerned of the defaulting Institution and withholding

part of the grant to ensure enforcement.

9. The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions, which

shall remain binding on the parties, with the hope that all the

concerned stakeholders will make every endeavour to give full

effect to the provisions of the said Act.

10. List for directions/compliance on 16.4.2010.

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

DECEMBER 17, 2009                                       AJIT BHARIHOKE, J.
b'nesh

_____________________________________________________________________________________________