Admission in B. Ed Courses

Surinder Kumar vs. Punjabi University and others

Filed Under: Articles 38, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
Appellant: Surinder Kumar
Respondent : Punjabi University and others
Citation: AIR 1995 P &H 131
Court: In the High Court of Punjab and Harayana
Judges: SS Grewal and ML Koul

This is a case in which Surinder Kumar was denied admission to B Ed course on the ground that he was blind..

Facts

Surinder Kumar was blind from birth. He passed his BA examinations with 1st division from Punjab University and appeared in the Combined Enterance Test held by the Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, for selection to B.Ed. in any College in Punjab. He submitted his admission form in two colleges at Patiala and Faridkot. There were 180 seats available in the Government College of Education, Patiala and 100 seats in the Government College of Education, Faridkot. According to the prospectuses of both the colleges, 2% seats were reserved in each college for handicapped persons.

Surinder appeared for the interview before the Interview Committee at both Patiala and Faridkot. Although he was eligible for admission in B Ed, the Principals of both these colleges denied him admission. On his enquiry, he was told that since he was a blind person, there was no seat available for him.

Surinder filed this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuing a direction to the Punjab University to admit him to B. Ed against one of the reserved seats earmarked for the physically handicapped persons. He contended that the principals of both the colleges had refused to admit him without any reason when they knew that 2% of the seats had been reserved for handicapped persons including the blind as per the Rules of the University. It was further stated that he was refused admission on the ground that he was blind but another blind student had been granted admission to the College of Education, Patiala, even though he possessed lesser merit than Surinder.

In response to this, the Punjabi University raised the preliminary objection that Surinder had not been able to produce a certificate from the Chief Medical officer to show that he could teach students and this was one of the conditions laid down by the prospectus of both the colleges. However, the Punjabi University did not deny 2% seats were kept reserved for the physically handicapped persons and that Surinder’s application fell under that category.

Observations of the Court

The Court examined the arguments extended by both the parties. According to the Court, Surinder was seeking admission to B Ed and was not seeking any appointment from the Principals of the Colleges who, as per Surinder’s eligibility were legally bound to provide him a seat on the basis of the 2% seats reserved for the physically handicapped candidates. The Court further pointed out that six candidates who belonged to the physically handicapped category were entitled to admission on the basis of their eligibility.

The Court also took up the argument made by the lawyer on behalf of Punjab University that only those candidates could be admitted who were handicapped by 40% and who had a certificate showing that they were able to teach. The Court held that if such a rule was contained in the prospectus of any college then it was illegal and contrary to the very law on which the 2% reservation for disabled candidates was based.

The Court further pointed out that Surinder had a good academic record and had secured a 1st division from the Punjab University. According to the Court, he was a meritorious candidate who could do better than those who were not blind and could also improve upon his career for his future vocational pursuits.

In light of these reasons the Court held that Surinder was entitled to admission to the B Ed Course. The petition was accordingly allowed and the Punjabi University was directed to see that Surinder was admitted to one of the two colleges. The University was further directed that if the classes for this course had already begun then special classes would be held for him.

Sections Referred:

  • Articles 38, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India

Cases Referred:

  • National Federation of Blind vs. Union Public 7Service Commission, AIR 1993 SC 1916:1993 AIR SCW 2130: (1993) 2 JT (SC) 541