Ranjana Verma vs Aiims
2011 Latest Caselaw 3360 Del

Citation : 2011 Latest Caselaw 3360 Del
Judgement Date : 15 July, 2011

Delhi High Court

Ranjana Verma vs Aiims on 15 July, 2011

Author: Kailash Gambhir

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                        Judgment delivered on: 15.07.2011


                             W.P.(C) No. 4465/2011


Ranjana Verma                                     ......Petitioner

              Through:         Mr. A.B. Kaushik for the petitioner.



                             Vs.

AIIMS                                   ......Respondent

              Through:        Mr. Mehmood Pracha, SLC AIIMS
                              with Mr. Sumit Babbar for AIIMS.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR

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


KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.Oral:

1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to direct the

respondent to make appropriate provision of 3% reservation

for the Physically Handicapped Persons in the course of M.Sc

Nursing for the current session beginning August 2011.

2. The background facts which have led to the filing of

the present petition are that the petitioner is a young girl of 26

years having 50% permanent disability being physically

handicapped. She obtained a degree of Bachelor of

Science(Hons.) Nursing from AIIMS in 2009 and then applied

for M.Sc in nursing in AIIMS for the current session beginning

august 2011. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that the

respondent AIIMS has made no provision for reservation for

the disabled/handicapped persons and are thus violating the

provisions of Section 39 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal

opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act,

1995.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is

mandatory for the respondent to make reservation for the

handicapped as per the Persons with Disabilities Act and that

the respondent cannot flout the said provisions under any

circumstance. Counsel also submits that according to the

prospectus, the respondent has reserved seats for the SC/ST

and OBC candidates and it is only the Handicapped who have

been discriminated against.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other

hand submits that the respondent has already completed the

process to admit the students in the M.Sc. Nursing course and

now if any adverse order is passed then it will lead to

upsetting the whole admission process.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. The petitioner in the present case had applied to

the two years Post Graduate course of M.Sc. Nursing for

session starting August 2011 in AIIMS in the general category

and her rank in the general category was at serial no. 31. The

petitioner had also participated in the counseling but she

could not make it as her rank in the general category was

much lower than the other candidates. The last date for

submission of the application form was 30.4.2011 upto 1.00

P.M. Clearly in the said prospectus, no provision for

physically handicapped persons in terms of Section 39 of the

Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of

Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 was made. The

petitioner through the information given to her under the

RTI Act came to know that no reservation to Orthopedic

handicap is being done in B.Sc.(Hons) Nursing/M.Sc (Hons)

Nursing Courses in the AIIMS, but even despite the said

information given by the respondent AIIMS to the petitioner,

the petitioner did not seek any remedy to challenge the terms

of the said prospectus wherein no provision for physically

disabled was made by the respondent AIIMS. It is also not in

dispute that the petitioner had applied in the general category

and in that category her rank was lower than the other

successful candidates. It is a settled legal position that for

challenging the criteria of the selection, recourse to legal

remedy should be taken at the earliest opportune time as with

the change in the criteria many other candidates would

become eligible or ineligible for admission.

7. In the light of the foregoing, no such directions can

be given by this court at this belated stage to make provision

for 3% reservation for the physically handicapped category as

already the process of admission for the said course is

complete.

8. The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,

Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 was

enacted to give effect to the Proclamation on the full

participation and equality of people with disabilities in the

Asian and Pacific Region to which India is a signatory. This Act

is undoubtedly a beneficial piece of social legislation and its

provisions are mandatory in nature. Section 39 of the said Act

reads as:

"All Government educational institutions and other educational institutions receiving aid from the Government shall reserve not less than three per cent seats for persons with disabilities."

Thus the provision was enacted to provide a level playing field

to the disabled persons in the realm of education to have an

attitude free of preconceived bias against these sufferers of

fate. The court is mindful of the fact that the above said

provision of 3% reservation in educational institutions cannot

be done away with especially by the premier institutes such as

the respondents, as it would lead to bringing the spirit and

object of the Act to naught.

9. However, the said reservation of 3% for the

handicapped in the nursing courses of M.Sc would not have

been advantageous for the petitioner alone but for many other

physically handicapped candidates who could have availed