Instances where three percent Reservation not Applicable to Professional courses

State of Kerala vs. Mary Joseph

Filed Under: Section 39 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995
Appellant: State of Kerala
Respondent: Mary Joseph
Citation: 2001 (3) KLT 26
Court: In the High Court of Kerala
Judges: KS Radhakrishnan & G Sasidharan

Facts

Mary Joseph had filed a writ petition for a declaration that persons with disabilities as defined in the Persons with Disabilities Act were entitled to not less than 3% of the total seats in the Government Colleges for the year 2000-2001. In this petition, Mary had also sought the quashing of various provisions in the prospectus published by the State of Kerala for admissions into ProfessionalCourses, since these provisions did not provide reservation of seats for persons with disabilities as per Section 39 of the Act.

In response to this, the State took up the stand that as per the prospectus 3 seats had been reserved for physically and orthopaedically handicapped persons inthe medical and 3 in the engineering branch, each. It was further pointed out that if Section 39 of the Act were to be applied as contended by Mary then 134 seats would have to be reserved for persons with disabilities, which would unsettle the entire selection process as well as the mandatory reservation to other categories.

After examining the arguments, the Single Judge passed an order stating that a clear illegality had been committed. The Government should see to it that in future 3% seats are reserved for the disabled persons and it should be kept in mind that while framing the prospectus, the provisions of the Act ar not violated.

This appeal was then filed by the State of Kerala, Commissioner for Entrance Examinations and Directo of Technical Education against the judgment given by the Single Judge.

Arguments made on behalf of the State of Kerala and others

The lawyer on behalf of the State of Kerala and others argued that Section 39 of the Act was introduced with an intention to give admission to the disabled persons in all Government and Government aided institutions and other educational institutions and not for the purpose of admission to professional courses like Medical, Engineering and Agricultural courses.

It was further argued tha the main aim of the Act was rehabilitation and employment and was not really admissions to professional degree courses. Therefore, it was necessary to examine the scope of the Act and decide whether Section 39 was applicable for admission to professional courses.

Observations of the Court

After examining the various sections of the Act, the Court concluded that Section 39 had to be read along with other sections and could not be understood in isolation. The Court further pointed out that the prospectus restricted admission only to those persons who could cope with the rigor of the courses in Engineering, Medical and other allied courses and permitted only those persons who had a minimum disability of 40% to apply.

According to the Court this restriction was completely justified since people with more than 40% disability would not be able to cope with the professional courses unless certified by the Medical Board. The Court held that suitable reservation had been made for such individuals in the prospectus. In Medical and allied courses, 3 seats had been earmarked for orthopaedically and other physically handicapped persons.

The Court further pointed out that Section 39 of the Act did not intend to reserve seats in the Medical, Engineering and other allied professional courses since this section came within the heading ‘Employment’. Also, if this section was applied, 134 seats would have to be reserved for persons having 40% disability and this would adversely affect the mandatory and special reservations made to other categories.

Accordingly, the Court held that the Commissioner for Entrance Examination would complete the selection process strictly on the basis of the prospectus and on the terms and conditions laid down in it.

The Court also noted that in light of the order passed by the Single Judge, one of the petitioners (name not mentioned) was undergoing studies and had already completed one year. In such circumstances, the Court was not inclined to disturb such admission. However, the direction given by the Single Judge to the State Government and to the Commissioner to reserve 3% seats for all persons suffering from disability of not less than 40% in the professional course was set aside. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.

Sections Referred:

  • Sections 39 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995s

Cases Referred:

  • Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Hansrajbhai vs. Kodala & Ors; 2001 (5) SCC 175
  • KP Varghese vs. Income Tax Officer 1981 (4) SCC 173
  • Philips India Ltd vs. Labour Court; AIR 1985 SC 1034
  • AG vs. HRH Prince Ernest Augustus; 1957 (1) All ER 995
  • Govt. of Andhra Pradesh vs. Dr. V Nagaraju; 1998 (8) SCC 66