Delhi HC seeks Response of Delhi University on Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities

Court: Delhi High Court

Bench:  Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

Caste No(s): W.P.(C)  5390/2022

Title: Jayant Singh Raghav Vs. University of Delhi & Ors.

Date of Order: 08 November 2023

Next Date of Hearing:  07 December 2023

Brief:

On a plea moved by one Jayant Singh Raghav, a student with visual disability of the Delhi University, raising the issue of provisions facilities and reasonable accommodations to students with disabilities during examinations.

The court asked the varsity to satisfy in the affidavit as to how the provisions of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, as well as the suggestions given by amicus curiae Advocate Kamal Gupta have been implemented. “As a last indulgence, 7 days time is granted to the respondent no.1- University to file comprehensive affidavit to satisfy as to how the provisions of the Act of 2016 and the suggestions/report of the Amicus Curiae have been implemented by the University,” the court said.

On March 10, the amicus curiae had handed over his report to the court wherein certain suggestions qua physical infrastructure and accessibility in the CLC as well as regarding Raghav were made. The report suggested that the Accessibility Guidelines and Standards for Higher Education Institutions and Universities, 2022, framed by the University Grants Commission (UGC) must be implemented immediately in CLC, Delhi University in time bound manner. 

It was also suggested that an access audit of CLC must be directed to be conducted immediately and a report be submitted to the court. The amicus curiae also suggested that at least 10 more ramps with tactile at various locations must be ordered to be erected immediately in the varsity and that a washroom for the disabled individuals be made functional on each floor as there was only one such toilet at present in the entire campus of CLC.

During the hearing, the counsel appearing for the Delhi Univeristy submitted that the repair work in toilets, corridors, open areas and provision of tactile and other facilities for persons with disabilities at CLC has been completed by the agency upto the satisfaction of varsity’s competent authority.

However, the court said, “Needless to state that the same was not only the expectation or the requirement under the provisions of the Act of 2016 or in the report submitted by the Amicus Curiae. It is to be seen that there are various other requirements to be adhered to by the respondent no.1-University,”.

Here is a copy of the order dated 08 November 2023:-

Delhi HC directs Kendriya Vidyalaya to provide reservation to Deaf and Hard of Hearing candidates through a special recruitment drive

Court: Delhi High Court
Bench:  Satish Chandra Sharma, Chief Justice, Sanjeev Narula, Justice.
Caste No(s): W.P.(C) 17460/2022 
Title: Court on its own Motion Vs. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Others
Connected matter: W.P.(C) 665/2023 National Association of the Deaf Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Date of Judgement: 01 November 2023
Neutral Citation: 2023: DHC: 7914-DB

Cases referred:  National Federation of the Blind Vs. Kendriya Vidvalaya Sangthan & Ors., 2023:DHC:7551-DB

Brief:

The present petition was registered as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) based upon a letter dated 07.12.2022 of the National Association of Deaf (NAD/ the Association) through its President Mr. A.S. Narayanan being aggrieved by Advertisements No.15/2022 & 16/2022 issued by Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) inviting applications for various posts of Principal, Vice-Principal, Post-Graduate Teacher (PGT), Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT), Librarian, Primary Teacher (Music), Finance Officer, as well as other posts. The NAD in its letter had stated that the advertisements issued by KVS were violative of statutory provisions as contained under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (the RPwD Act).

The grievance was raised that the advertisements failed to provide the mandatory 1% reservation for deaf and hard of hearing persons as required under Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. It was alleged that KVS had excluded persons with hearing disabilities from several posts, including Principal, Vice-Principal, PGT, TGT and Primary Teacher posts.

KVS defended its recruitment process by relying upon a 2013 notification identifying posts suitable for persons with disabilities and contended that an internal committee constituted by it had assessed suitability and excluded certain categories of disabilities from specific posts.

The petitioners argued that the 2013 notification had already been superseded by the Central Government notification dated 04 January 2021 issued under Section 33 of the RPwD Act, and that KVS had no authority to independently exclude identified posts from reservation.

Key Observations

The Delhi High Court held that the notification dated 04 January 2021 issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment governed the field at the time of recruitment and had superseded the earlier 2013 notification.  

The Court observed that the 2021 notification specifically identified several posts, including Principal, Vice-Principal, PGT, TGT and other teaching posts, as suitable for persons with disabilities.

It held that KVS had acted contrary to the statutory framework by constituting its own internal committee and excluding deaf and hard of hearing candidates from posts already identified by the appropriate government. The Court clarified that the power of identification and exemption vests exclusively with the appropriate government under the RPwD Act and cannot be assumed by autonomous institutions.

The Court further emphasised that reservation under Section 34 must be computed on the basis of the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength and not selectively restricted through administrative practices.

Importantly, the Court recognised that the principle of reasonable accommodation is embedded within the statutory scheme and that institutions are under a positive obligation to create enabling conditions for participation of persons with disabilities, rather than viewing disability from the perspective of inconvenience.

The Court also noted a broader “policy disconnect” between the nodal ministry responsible for disability rights and recruiting institutions implementing reservation policies, observing that such inconsistency repeatedly compels persons with disabilities to seek judicial intervention for enforcement of basic statutory rights.

Directions Issued

• KVS was directed to provide 1% reservation for deaf and hard of hearing persons against the identified posts under the 2021 notification.
• The Court directed KVS to conduct a special recruitment drive for filling backlog vacancies reserved for persons with disabilities.
• Reservation was directed to be calculated on the basis of the total number of vacancies in the organisation.
• KVS was directed to complete the process of issuing fresh advertisements and filling reserved vacancies within stipulated timelines.
• The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment was directed to issue suitable guidelines to ensure uniform implementation of reservation policies across departments.

Commentary

The judgment is a strong reaffirmation of the statutory architecture under the RPwD Act and significantly limits the ability of recruiting bodies to dilute disability reservation through internal administrative mechanisms. By holding that identification and exemption of posts are functions reserved exclusively for the appropriate government, the Court prevents institutions from selectively narrowing the scope of reservation through subjective notions of suitability.

A particularly important aspect of the ruling is its recognition that exclusion often operates not through express denial of rights, but through institutional practices that undermine the implementation of reservation in practice. The Court correctly identified that such practices effectively force persons with disabilities into repeated litigation merely to secure statutory entitlements already guaranteed by law.

The judgment also advances the principle of reasonable accommodation by treating it as an active institutional obligation rather than a discretionary measure. The Court’s observation that disability was being viewed “from the lens of inconvenience” reflects an important critique of entrenched administrative attitudes that continue to shape exclusionary recruitment practices.

At the same time, the Court adopted a pragmatic approach by declining to disturb completed recruitment processes, instead directing future corrective measures and backlog recruitment. While this avoided disruption to existing appointments, it also meant that immediate structural relief to affected candidates remained limited. Nevertheless, the decision substantially strengthens enforceability of disability reservation and reinforces that administrative bodies cannot override statutory guarantees through internal policies or committees.

Read the Judgement in W.P.(C) 17460/2022 dated 01 Nov 2023