Kartik Sawhney vs Union Of India And Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 3502 Del

           *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                       Date of decision: 30th April, 2015

+                               W.P.(C) 7964/2012
       KARTIK SAWHNEY                                     ..... Petitioner
                  Through:             Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, Adv.

                                    versus

    UNION OF INDIA AND ORS                    ..... Respondents
                  Through: Ms. Abha Malhotra & Mr. Dhruv
                           Dwivedi, Advs. for R-1.
                           Mr. Amit Bansal & Ms. Seema Dolo,
                           Adv. for R-2.
                           Mr. Arjun Mitra, Adv. for R-3.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed to

direct the respondents (i.e. (i) Union of India, Ministry of Human Resource

Development, (ii) JEE (Main) Secretariat, CBSE and (iii) IIT Delhi)

(a) to ensure that alternate questions in lieu of questions with visual inputs are

provided for candidates with visual disability in Joint Entrance Examination

(JEE) (Main) - 2013 and JEE (Advanced) - 2013 as well as in corresponding

examinations conducted in successive years;

(b) to ensure that blind candidates are allowed to bring their own amanuensis,

or in the alternative amanuensis are provided to the satisfaction of blind

candidates, in JEE (Main) and JEE (Advanced) examinations;

(c) to allow amanuensis who have completed Class XI th in Science stream with

Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics for blind candidates appearing in JEE

(Main) and JEE (Advanced) examination;

(d) to ensure that the blind candidates do not face any discrimination by way of

denial of opportunity to take part in counselling; and,

(e) to suitably amend the provisions of Clause 2.5 of the Information Bulletin

for JEE (Main) and Clause 2.3 of the Information Brochure for JEE (Advanced)

as well as other rules, bye-laws, notifications, terms and conditions to ensure

that visually challenged candidates are not prevented from pursuing

engineering education on an equal basis with others.

2. The petition was entertained and notice thereof issued and counter

affidavit was filed by the respondent no.3 IIT Delhi which was conducting JEE

(Advanced) in the year 2013 and by the respondent no.2 CBSE, which conducts

JEE (Main), and to which rejoinders were filed by the petitioner. The learned

Single Judge before whom the petition was then pending, vide order dated 2 nd

April, 2013 issued interim directions with respect to the examination then

scheduled to be held on 7th April, 2013, (i) of providing scribe/reader/lab

assistant from Science stream, who has studied Science upto Class XI th to the

petitioner; (ii) of allowing the petitioner to meet and interact with the

scribe/reader/lab assistant one hour before the examination, at the Centre of

examination; and, (iii) of permitting the respondents to take steps which they

may deem necessary to strengthen their invigilation system so that the

scribe/reader/lab assistant does not indulge in any malpractices like copying

and cheating during the examination.

3. In the light of the said directions having been issued, in the subsequent

order dated 17th October, 2014, it was observed that the reliefs which were

personal to the petitioner stood satisfied and finding that the remaining reliefs

claimed in the writ petition were in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, the

petition was ordered to be listed before the appropriate Bench.

4. We were on 10th December, 2014 informed that steps were in progress

for preparation of the Scheme of Examination for the year 2015-16 and that

various issues raised in the present petition were likely to be taken care of in the

said Scheme. Thereafter the counsel for the respondent no.3 placed before us

the Information Brochure of the JEE (Advanced) - 2015 in which according to

the respondent no.3 the essential issues raised in the writ petition stood

addressed. We also directed the respondents to file affidavits in the regard and

affidavits dated 27th February, 2015 and 16th March, 2015 have been filed by

the IIT, Delhi and CBSE. We heard the counsel for the petitioner and the

counsel for the respondents on 22nd April, 2015 and reserved judgment.

5. The respondent no.2 CBSE in its affidavit dated 16th March, 2015 has

stated, (i) that Clause 2.5 of the Information Bulletin for JEE (Main) - 2015 has

been amended to make provision for candidates suffering from 40% or more

physical impairment; (ii) such candidates will have the discretion of either

opting for his/her own scribe/reader or to submit a request to the Centre

Superintendent for the same and in which case the Superintendent will identify

the scribe/reader and the candidates will be allowed to meet the scribe a day

before the examination to verify the suitability of the scribe; (iii) such

candidates will be given one hour compensatory (extra) time, irrespective of the

fact whether they are availing the facility of scribe/reader; and, (iv) that CBSE

will take up the issue of inclusion of alternate questions (for visually impaired

candidates) in lieu of questions having visual inputs in the next meeting of JEE

Apex Board for taking further necessary action in the matter.

6. IIT, Delhi, responsible for conducting JEE (Advanced) - 2015, in its

affidavit dated 27th February, 2015 has stated, (i) that services of a scribe

(amanuensis) have been made available to candidates who are visually

impaired, dyslexic, have disability in the upper limbs or have lost fingers/hands

thereby preventing them from bubbling the Optical Response Sheet (ORS); (ii)

to avail this benefit, the candidate has to request the Chairman, JEE (Advanced)

- 2015 of the respective zonal IIT in the prescribed format; (iii) the scribe will

be a Class XIth student from Science stream with Mathematics as one of the

subjects; (iv) one hour extra time has been given to such candidates; (v) that the

Joint Admission Board/Joint Implementation Committee for the JEE

(Advanced) have also considered the relief claimed in the petition of providing

alternate questions in lieu of questions with drawings/visual inputs but have

decided that it is not possible because, (a) visual questions are an integral part

of the testing process; (b) it is not possible to find questions of identical

difficulty; (c) such candidates would be entitled to choose one scribe from the

panel maintained in this regard; (d) however it has not been found feasible to

allow the candidates to bring their own scribe; and, (e) the candidates will

however be allowed to meet the scribe one day prior to the examination in the

presence of the Presiding Officer and the Invigilator.

7. As would be obvious from the aforesaid, the changes already

made/carried out by the respondents satisfy all the reliefs claimed in the

petition save for providing alternate questions (to visually impaired candidates)

in lieu of questions with visual inputs. As far as the said issue is concerned, the

CBSE, qua JEE (Main) has stated that the matter is under consideration and

IIT, Delhi responsible for conducting JEE (Advanced) has stated that the matter

has been discussed at the appropriate level and has not found favour for the

reasons given and recorded aforesaid. We are of the view that in such matters

the power of the Court to intervene is limited and the decision of the experts in

the field of education has to be respected. Supreme Court, in All India Council

for Technical Education Vs. Surinder Kumar Dhawan (2009) 11 SCC 726

held that the Courts are neither equipped nor have the academic or technical

background to substitute themselves in place of professional technical bodies

and take decisions in academic matters involving standards and quality of

technical education. If the courts, to alleviate hardship or to provide better

opportunity or because they think one course of action is better than the other,

start taking decisions in educational matters, without realizing the

repercussions on the field of technical education in general, it will lead to chaos

in education and deterioration of standards. The purpose of education is to arm

the candidate with the knowledge and expertise to perform the role for which

he/she has qualified and not with a mere paper Degree. If the experts, after

considering the matter, have formed an opinion that no purpose would be

served in admitting a candidate to IIT, who is unable to tackle a problem

requiring visual inputs, in the absence of anything to the contrary, we are

unable to hold/direct otherwise. The court's jurisdiction to interfere with the

discretion exercised by such an expert body is limited even though right to

education is concomitant to the Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III of the

Constitution (see The Dental Council of India Vs. Subharti KKB Charitable

Trust (2001) 5 SCC 486). The counsel for the petitioner also has not been able

to argue that the decision in this regard of the Joint Admission Board/Joint

Implementation Committee is erroneous in any way. Supreme Court in

Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Education Vs. Paritosh

Bhupesh Kumar Sheth (1984) 4 SCC 27 had warned that it will be wholly

wrong for the Court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the

problems, isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems involved in

the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would

emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be

propounded.

8. We accordingly dispose of this petition in terms of above; leaving the

parties to bear their own costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

CHIEF JUSTICE APRIL 30, 2015 'pp'