Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: Hon'ble The Chief Justice and Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Kameswar Rao
Case No.: W.P.(C) 3817/2018
Case Title: National Federation of Blind Vs. Union of India
Date of Judgement: 12 Nov 2018
Cases refereed:
- 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,
Brief:
The petition is filed seeking relief that the selection to M.Phil / Ph.D and Ph.D. courses in respondent Jawahar Lal Nehru University (JNU) has to be on relaxed standards and on the basis of the marks obtained both in written examination and viva-voce.
The bench observed that, "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 c ase, the Court is of the viewthat 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".
The further observed, "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%."
The bench clarified, "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."
Read the judgement below: