Delhi High Court
Ms. Kanchana Narasimhan vs University Of Delhi & Others on 11 January, 2010
Author: S.N. Aggarwal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C.) No. 1235/2007 & C.M. No. 12771/2008
% Date of Decision: 11th JANUARY, 2010
# MS. KANCHANA NARASIMHAN
.....PETITIONER
! Through: Mr. P. Chandrasekharan, Advocate.
VERSUS
$ UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & OTHERS
.....RESPONDENTS
^ Through: Mr. Vikas Sethi, Advocate for counsel for the
respondent No. 1.
Mr. Mayank Manish, Advocate for counsel
for respondent No. 2/UGC.
Mr. Krishan Mahajan, Advocate for the
respondent No. 4.
Mr. Saurabh Upadhyay, Advocate for
respondents No. 7, 8 & 9.
CORAM:
Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL
1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the
judgment? NO
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NO
S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)
The petitioner is a Visually Physically Handicapped Person. She
was a candidate for the post of Lecturer in Geography in Kirori Mal
College (respondent No. 4 herein). She could not qualify the selection
process held for the said post. She has filed this writ petition seeking
issuance of a writ of mandamus against the respondents for her
appointment to the post of Lecturer (Geography) in Kirori Mal College
invoking her rights under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.
2. Mr. Krishan Mahajan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent No. 4 College, has opposed the maintainability of the present
writ petition on the ground that the petitioner cannot be permitted to
take two parallel proceedings for the same relief, i.e. one by filing the
present writ petition and the second in proceedings before the Chief
Commissioner being the competent authority under the Persons with
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 1995.
3. Mr. P. Chandrasekharan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, admits filing of a complaint by the petitioner before the Chief
Commissioner under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,
Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. He, however,
submits that no decision has been taken by the Chief Commissioner on
the said complaint of the petitioner till date.
4. At this stage, counsel for both the parties have agreed for passing
of a consent order in the matter. They have agreed that directions may
be given to the Chief Commissioner who is the competent authority
under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of
Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 for taking a final decision on the
complaint of the petitioner by a speaking order under intimation to the
petitioner within a time bound period, granting liberty to the petitioner to
challenge the order of the Chief Commissioner, if she is aggrieved by the
said order, in appropriate proceedings before the competent court as per
law.
5. In view of the above and having regard to the submissions made by
the counsel for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of with directions
to the Chief Commissioner under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 to
decide the complaint of the petitioner pending before it finally by a
speaking order within six weeks from today. Liberty is granted to the
petitioner to challenge the order of the Chief Commissioner to be
communicated to her, in case, she is not satisfied by the said order in
appropriate proceedings before the competent court as per law. The stay
application being C.M. No. 12771/2008 is dismissed as infructuous.
6. A copy of this order be sent to the Chief Commissioner under the
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and
Full Participation) Act, 1995 for information immediately.
Order dasti.
JANUARY 11, 2010 S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'BSR'
