Satyaveer Singh Dagur vs Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research

K. Kannan, J.—The writ petition is at the instance of a person who is physically handicapped to the extent of 48% who seeks for admission to M.Sc. Nursing two years programme. His application was as an in-service candidate as PGI staff and the vacancies available for PGI staff was 6, that included 3 for general, 1 for SC/ST and 2 for OBC. The minimum marks required for eligibility for consideration was 50 marks for all students and a relaxation of 5 marks was given to SC/ST and OBC candidates. The petitioner''s grievance is that all the 6 vacancies had been filled up without addressing the claim of the petitioner who was physically handicapped and who should have been given relaxation by 5 marks in the manner that provided by the Chief Commissioner for persons with disabilities. The Chief Commissioner for persons with disabilities is a statutory body created under the Persons with Disabilities Act (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act of 1995. In the recommendations given by the Chief Commissioner, as brought out in a case brought before A.L. Confederation of the A.I. Confederation of the Blind and Another Vs. U.O.I. (Union of India) and Another, , he has set down several terms which include the following:- "7. The relaxation extended to SC & ST candidates as per Maintenance of Standard 1998 of the Universities, provides for a 5% relaxation from 55% to 50% in the marks obtained at Master''s Degree. Since reservation for the disabled is called horizontal reservation which cuts across all vertical categories such as SC, ST, OBC & General (sic). Therefore, all such blind/low-vision persons who belonged to SC, ST vertical category would automatically enjoy the benefit of 5% relaxation at the minimum qualifying marks obtained at Master''s Degree level. Thus, only the blind and low-vision belonging to OBC and General categories are deprived of the relaxation of 5% marks at Masters'' level. The blind/low vision and other visually disabled persons belonging to SC & ST category are in any case enjoying the benefit of 5% relaxation in marks obtained at the master''s level for appearing in the NET examination conducted by the UGC. By extending the same relaxation to particularly blind/low-vision and in general all disabled at par with SC & ST disabled would bring parity amongst all persons with disabilities irrespective of their vertical categories."

The office of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities performs duties which are assigned under Section 58 of the Act, which are as follows:-

"58. The Chief Commissioner shall-

a) Coordinate the work of the Commissioners;

b) Monitor the utilization of funds disbursed by the Central Government;

c) Take steps to safeguard the rights and facilities made available to Persons with disabilities;

d) Submit reports to the Central Government on the implementation of the Act at such intervals as that Government may prescribe."

Even without prejudice to the provisions referred to in Section 58, Section 59 sets out that the powers which a Chief Commissioner may exercise, shall be, on his own motion or on the application of any aggrieved person to look into a complaints with respect to matter relating to deprivation of rights of persons with disabilities. If there is a recommendation of a statutory body providing for relaxation of 5 marks in the same way made for the SC/ST and OBC, it was bound to be set forth as eligible for a person who was physically handicapped with the percentage which qualifies for the special privilege.

I have gone through the prospectus and it has not taken note of the recommendations given by the Commissioner. The prospectus was issued on May, 2014 and the results were announced on 06.07.2014. The counsel for the respondents states that all the 6 vacancies have been filled up and there is no vacancy available for the category of in-service candidate. As a matter of fact, at the previous hearing on 06.08.2014 taking note of the special privileges which ought to have been made available, I had elicited a response from the respondents that there was still a vacancy in the outsiders category, the petitioner could opt to take admission in the outsider''s category. I had adjourned the case to 08.08.2014 and allowed for the petitioner to take appropriate instructions.

The petitioner was not present on the adjourned date but the counsel for the respondents stated that he was informed that the petitioner was not willing to be considered as outsider category and that he would insist on admission in the in-service candidate''s category. Having allowed the prospectus to go unchallenged at an appropriate time by seeking for a correction in the manner which the recommendations have come through the Commissioner, and also not willing to take a seat in the other category which was available at the relevant time, I am afraid, I cannot admit the plea of the petitioner that could cause a displacement of a candidate who has already been selected. I also direct that in all the future advertisements, they shall cause an appropriate provision for relaxation for the handicapped category at par with a person in SC/ST and if need be, obtain clarification from the Commission for Persons with Disability if there are specific relaxation provisions for PWD candidates pursuing postgraduate courses. Since the petitioner had a justifiable grievance but still not expressed at a time when it should have been done and in the manner that ought to have been pursued, even while dismissing the petition, I award cost of Rs. 10,000/- in favour of the petitioner against the respondents. The writ petition is dismissed on the above terms.