Delhi High Court
Virinder Aggarwal vs Department Of Empowerment Of ... on 28 July, 2017
$~47
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3478/2017
VIRINDER AGGARWAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Amann Preet Singh Rahi,
Advocate.
versus
DEPARTMENT OF EMPOWERMENT OF
PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ..... Respondent
Through: Mr Kamal Kant Jha, Senior Panel
Counsel.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
ORDER
% 28.07.2017
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as
under:-
"a) Issue writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction commanding upon the Respondent to
consider the application of the daughter of the Petitioner for
scholarship as per the advertisement issued in the newspaper
(Annexure - herein) since she is in the category of more than
40% disability."
2. The petitioner's daughter, Ms Geetika Aggarwal, was born on
19.08.1985 with a congenital defect as she had only one kidney. The
petitioner states that Geetika excelled in academics and completed her
schooling with 82% marks in 10th and 70% in class 12th. She thereafter
joined Guru Nank Dev Engineering College, Ludhiana to pursue a course in
Bachelors of Technology in Electronics and Commerce Engineering. It is
averred that after completing her graduation in first division in the year
2007, she proceeded to take admission with the University of Northumbria
at New Castle, England, United Kingdom to pursue her Master of Science
Course in Microelectronics and Communications Engineering. She
completed the said course in the year 2010. Being a meritorious student,
Geetika was selected for pursuing the PhD Research Programme in the
Faculty of Engineering and Environment from Northumbria University,
U.K.
3. The petitioner states that Ms Geetika Aggarwal is a person with
disability and now claims scholarship under the "National Overseas
Scholarship for Students with Disabilities" announced by the respondent.
Ms Aggarwal's application has been rejected on the ground that in terms of
the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and
Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereafter 'the 1995 Act'), the petitioner cannot
be treated as a person with disability.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the 1995
Act has been replaced by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
(hereafter 'the 2016 Act') and the petitioner would be covered under the
definition of a 'person with disability' by virtue of Section 2(s) of the 2016
Act.
5. Section 2 (i) of the 1995 Act defines 'disability' to mean as under:-
"disability" means---
(i) blindness;
(ii) low vision;
(iii) leprosy-cured;
(iv) hearing impairment;
(v) locomotor disability;
(vi) mental retardation;
(vii) mental illness;"
6. Concededly, the petitioner's daughter would not fall within any one of
the said categories. By virtue of Section 102 of the 2016 Act, the 1995 Act
stands repealed. Under the 2016 Act, a 'person with disability' is defined
under Section 2(s), which reads as under:-
"(s) "person with disability" means a person with long term
physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairment which, in
interaction with barriers, hinders his full and effective
participation in society equally with others;"
7. A plain reading of the aforesaid definition indicates that for a person
to qualify as 'a person with disability', he should suffer a disability - long
term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairment - which presents
an impediment in his full and effective participation in society equally with
others.
8. The words "in interaction with barriers" in parenthesis are also of
material significance. The word 'barrier' is defined under Section 2(c) of the
2016 Act as under:-
"(c) "barrier'' means any factor including
communicational, cultural, economic, environmental,
institutional, political, social, attitudinal or structural factors
which hampers the full and effective participation of persons
with disabilities in society;"
9. The impairment referred to in Section 2(s) of the 2016 Act - that is,
long term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairment - is further
qualified with the words 'in interaction with barriers'. It is thus expressly
made clear that such disability is one, which in interaction with any of the
factors (such as communicational, cultural, economic, environmental,
institutional, political, social, attitudinal or structural) as indicated in Section
2(c) of the 2016 Act) obstructs the person with the disability to fully and
effective participate in the society.
10. If the case of Ms Geetika Aggarwal is considered in that context, it is
at once clear that she is not hindered in any manner in her interaction with
and effective participation in the society to the fullest extent. Therefore, this
Court does not find any infirmity in the decision of the respondent in
denying her scholarship in favour of other persons with disabilities.
11. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
JULY 28, 2017
pkv
