Delhi High Court
National Federation Of The Blind vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 November, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: November 12, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 3817/2018, CM Nos. 15143/2018, 18933/2018 & 18935/2018
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.K. Rungta (Sr. Adv.) petitioner
in person with Mr. Shivankur Shukla,
Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Dev. P. Bhardwaj, CGSC for R1
Ms. Monika Arora, SC (JNU) with Mr.
Harsh Ahuja, Mr. Kushal Kumar, Ms.
Vibha Tripathi, Advs. for R3/JNU with
Mr. M.K. Pachori, Deputy Registrar
for JNU
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner
Federation inter alia seeking relief that the selection to M.Phil /
Ph.D and Ph.D. courses in respondent no.3 has to be on relaxed
standards and on the basis of the marks obtained both in written
examination and viva-voce.
2. It is the submission of Mr. S.K. Rungta, learned
Sr. Counsel / representative of the petitioner that in terms of Section
32 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection
of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 2015 (for short 'Disabilities
Act'), all Government Institutions of Higher Education receiving
aid from the Government have to strictly reserve not less than 5% of
seats for persons with disabilities. According to him as against 723
seats in the academic session 2018-19, only 32 seats have been
reserved for persons with disabilities. The said figure has been
quantified by the University by applying the Central Educational
Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006, which stipulates
vide Section 3 that the reservation of seats in admission in Central
Educational Institutions shall be out of the annual permit strength in
each School / Centre.
3. It is his submission that the reservation for disabled persons
has to be on the basis of total number of seats by taking Schools /
Centres together. He also submits that for the academic year 2018-
19, the University has not granted reservation where the number of
seats in each school / centre is less than 9. In other words, one seat
is reserved in each School / Centre where there are minimum 9
seats. According to him, when Section 32 of the Disabilities Act,
2015 mandates that not less than 5% seats must be reserved for
persons with disabilities, the respondents under the garb of applying
the Act of 2006 cannot reduce the reservation for persons with
disabilities to less than 5%. In other words, the Act of 2006 cannot
govern the manner of computation of seats to be reserved for
persons with disabilities.
4. On the other hand, Ms. Monika Arora, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent no.3 / University submits that the
implementation of reservation for PWD category at 5% for all the
courses offered in the academic year 2018-19 is in pursuance to the
Disabilities Act, 2016. She submits that JNU is having 11 Schools
and 4 special centers which are offering M.Phil / Ph.D. Courses. In
order to compute reservation, a reservation ready reckoner duly
approved by the competent authority is referred to. She concedes
that reservation computed may not be on the total number of seats /
intake, but on the basis of seats distributed from ready reckoner, for
example, JNU may indicate total 100 seats for Ph.D. Ideally,
reservation for PWD horizontally should be for 5 seats. However,
the total 100 seats must have a break-up of the course offered by
various Schools / Centres with varied intake from minimum one
seat to any number of seats. Therefore, if reservation ready
reckoner is applied to say 7 seats in a particular centre, it may not
result in reservation for PWD. According to her, it is for this reason
that the seats offered to PWD category comes to 32 instead of 36 @
5%. She also states though total 33 number of qualified candidates
were invited for viva-voce from PWD category for both the courses
against total intake of 32, only 20 candidates qualified in the viva-
voce as (i) reservation can be granted only where provision has been
kept for reservation of a particular category centre-wise/ school-
wise; (ii) the university permits maximum three choices to each
candidate in each programme. According to her, out of 20
candidates qualified for viva-voce, 15 have got admission.
5. We note that an application has been filed by the petitioner
seeking admission with regard to two candidates, namely, Deepak
Mishra and Dharamveer Yadav, who according to Mr. Rungta have
been denied admission on the ground that the reservation in the
courses of study (Sanskrit and Comparative Political Theory) in
which they were seeking admission is one each.
6. Ms. Arora has drawn our attention to an additional affidavit
filed by the University wherein following has been stated:
"In pursuance of The Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Act, 2016, the competent authority of the University has
agreed to grant admission to two PWD candidates
namely Shri Dharamveer Yadav in M.Phil / Ph.D.
(Comparative Political Theory) and Shri Deepak Mishra
in M.Phil / Ph.D. (Sanskrit).
In M.Phil / Ph.D. (Sanskrit) the total intake for Academic
Year 2018-19 as per University Grants Commission
(Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of M.Phil
/ Ph.D. Degrees) Regulations, 2016 was 19 and the total
joined candidates is 18. Thus, the Respondent University
can offer admission to Shri Deepak Mishra without
violating the UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure
for Award of M.Phil / Ph.D Degrees) Regulations, 2016.
In M.Phil / Ph.D. (Comparative Political Theory) the
total intake for Academic Year 2018-19 as per University
Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure
for Award of M.Phil / Ph.D. Degrees) Regulations, 2016
was 7. All 7 candidates were given admission, granting
admission to one more candidate (Shri Dharamveer
Yadav) is not permissible under Clause 6.5 of the UGC
Standards and Procedure for Award of M.Phil / Ph.D.
Degrees) Regulations, 2016. However, JNU will carry
out the direction given by the Hon'ble Court and request
that the Hon'ble Court may please give any necessary
directions in this regard."
7. Having noted the aforesaid position, the only issue that
remains to be decided is whether Dharamveer Yadav is entitled to
admission in "Comparative Political Theory" stream. The
justification given by the University is that in view of University
Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award
of M.Phil / Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2016, the intake for M.Phil /
Ph.D. is 7 and any deviation would be in violation of the said
Regulations and all the 7 seats having been filled, no admission can
be granted to the petitioner.
8. The justification given by the University is appealing but we
cannot ignore the fact that Dharamveer Yadav despite qualifying the
selection process could not get admission as there was only one
reserved seat for a disabled candidate and not two. Also, we find
that many reserved seats, at least 15 have gone waste as no person
with disability could get qualified, against the said seats. In such an
eventuality and in peculiar facts of this case, the Court is of the view
that the Respondent No.3 shall increase the intake to 8 in the
"Comparative Political Theory" stream, which shall be
supernumerary, which shall get lapsed after Dharamveer is awarded
the degree. His admission shall also consume one seat of the
unfilled seats reserved for PWD, which could not be filled for want
of candidates.
9. That apart, this court is of the view that the respondents
cannot dilute the mandate of the Section 32 of the Disabilities Act,
and reduce the reservation to less than 5%. This is what has been
held by this court in the cases of Sambhavana v. Union of India
and Ors. W.P.(C) 3919/2014 decided on March 4, 2015; Students
Federation of India and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. W.P(C)
3032/2017 decided on October 1, 2018 and the Supreme Court in
the cases of Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. Union of
India (UOI) and Ors. (2017)14 SCC 1; Union of India and Ors. v.
National Federation of Blind and Ors. 2013 10 SCC 772,
10. It is for the University to work out the mandate of the Act,
so that every person with disability, who qualifies get admission.
But in no case they can violate the mandate.
CM Nos. 15143/2018, 18933/2018 & 18935/2018
Dismissed as infructuous.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
CHIEF JUSTICE
NOVEMBER 12, 2018/jg
