Criteria for Reservation in an Engineering Course

Naveen Kumar vs. University of Delhi

Filed Under: Section 39, Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995
Appellant: Naveen Kumar A
Respondent: University of Delhi
Citation: CWP No: 4657 of 2000, Decided on 24th Nov, 2000 (Unreported): (2005) 1 PDD (CC) 69
Court: In the High Court of Delhi
Judge: S.N. Kapoor

This is a case regarding the admission of Naveen Kumar to an Engineering Course under the provisions of Section 39 of the Persons with Disabilities Act.

Facts

Naveen Kumar appeared in the entrance test for the B.E. Computer Course conducted by the Delhi University and secured a rank of 5,016 out of 25,000. He was however not granted admission. He then filed this petition demanding reservation of seats for the disabled, under Section 39 of the Act and for his admission to the course.

Arguments made on behalf of the Delhi University:

The lawyer on behalf of the Delhi University opposed the petition on the following grounds:
  • Firstly, that Section 39 did not deal with reservation in educational institutions since the chapter of the Act containing that section dealt with employment.

  • Secondly, it was contended that Naveen or any other individual suffering from any disability, had no right to claim admission against reserved seats as the University Bulletin did not mention that any seats were reserved for the disabled.

  • Thirdly, he argued that Naveen was handicapped to such an extent that he might not be able to pursue the course in a successful manner and granting admission to him might unnecessarily block the seat that could be used by some other deserving candidate.

Observations of the Court

The Court observed that the lawyer for the Delhi University was right in stating that Section 39 of the Act did not fall within the chapter of the Act dealing with Education. The Court also observed that Section 39 had not been drafted properly.

However, the Court held that bad drafting could not and should not debar the clear intention of the Act. The intention had to be accepted irrespective of the bad drafting. Furthermore, it was stated that it was quite obvious from Section 39 that it related to all educational institutions and referred to "seats" as against "vacancies." The Court accordingly rejected this argument.

With regard to the second contention, the Court held that the Universities and all other Educational institutions had to comply with the provisions of the Act and reserve at least 3% of its seats for disabled candidates.

The Court held that merely because the University Bulletin was silent about the seats reserved for handicapped persons, this was no reason for denying reservation to people suffering from disabilities.

Lastly, the Court held that it was not in its power to decide whether Naveen was "too handicapped" to successfully pursue the course. The Court held that a Medical officer of the University would have to examine him to find out whether or not he could effectively pursue the Course without much difficulty.

It was further directed that the Medical Officer would have to take Naveen around the workshop and the laboratory and observe whether or not he could pursue his studies. The Court further directed that the Medical officer would also have to take into account the question of moving space required by Naveen for his wheelchair.

However, the Court held that he would be allowed the use of his wheel chair and calipers during the medical examination.

The Court directed the University of Delhi to get Naveen medically examined by a Medical Officer of the University and decide the question of his admission within a period of 10 days. The petition was disposed of accordingly.

Sections Referred:

Section 39, Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995

Top

Umesh Kumar vs. State of Haryana and Anr

Filed Under: Article 14 of the Constitution of India
Appellant: Umesh Kumar
Respondent: State of Haryana and Another
Citation: AIR 1989 P&H 130
Court: In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
Judge: D.V. Sehgal

Umesh Kumar filed this petition, challenging the decision of the Chhotu Ram State College of Engineering, Haryana, in denying him admission on grounds of his visual disability.

Facts

Umesh Kumar got admission to the Engineering Course (B.E) in Chhotu Ram State College of Engineering, Murthal, Haryana. Every candidate seeking admission to this course was required to undergo a medical examination.

Umesh was referred for a medical examination to the Chief Medical officer, Sonipat, who further referred his case to the Rohtak Medical College. A Board of Ophthalmologists examined him and stated that he was fit for admission to the Bachelor of Engineering Course.

However, in spite of the Board finding Umesh fit to pursue the Course, the Chief Medial Officer issued a certificate, which stated that according to the standard laid down in the Information Bulletin, the power of glasses Umesh had in both eyes made him unfit for admission to the course.

The CMO was of the opinion that according to the prescribed standard of medical fitness, glasses were allowed for hypermetropic astigmatism up to 3.5 D and for myopia or myopia astigmatism up to 2.5 D. Since Umesh had had not been able to meet the requisite standard of eyesight he could not be granted admission. Accordingly, the Director-Principal of the College cancelled his admission to the Course.

Umesh then filed this writ petition challenging the cancellation of his admission. In response to the petition the College stated that the standard of eyesight and power glasses mentioned in the Regulation of the College were a must and since a student of Engineering had to handle different instruments and machinery, a minimum standard of eyesight for this purpose, was very essential.

Observations of the Court

The Court referred to the standard of vision that had been prescribed by most engineering colleges for admission to its Engineering Courses. The Court especially referred to the standard of vision followed by the Indian Institute of Technology and stated that since this institution was one of the pioneer institutes of the country, the requirement of fitness prescribed by it must be taken into account.

After examining, the standard of vision prescribed by IIT the Court held that it could find no justification in the decision of Chhotu Ram College in denying admission to Umesh. The Court held that the standard of vision prescribed by the College in its brochure was completely arbitrary and unsuitable and quashed the same.

Consequently, the Court allowed Umesh's writ petition along with the petition of another candidate with a similar complaint. The Court directed the College to allow Umesh to continue with his studies in the Engineering Course to which he had been admitted. The Court also held that the petitioners were to be granted costs of the petitions fixed at Rs. 500 in each writ petition.

Sections Referred:

Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950

Top