Children of a lesser god?
The indifference and apathy of the powers-that-be qua those with disabilities is increasing by the day. Today, I was once again shocked to read the news item appearing in the following link.
The HINDU
One, those who are entrusted with public dealing are not educated about the rights available to these special friends of ours. Secondly, when confronted, the officials would in almost all cases be rude and unaccomodating taking shelter under ambiguous circulars and notifications.
I had the unfortunate ocassion of handling such a situation in a case decided last year of a student who had dyslexia had excelled despite the peculiar circumstances he was in. While the Court, having regard to the case, tried its best to persuade the Administration, the Administration was adamant and took umbrage under an insensitive law and policy. The Court's helplessness is apparent from the Judgement.
************************************************************
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P.(C) 12761/2005
MASTER VENKATESH BHATNAGAR ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Vijay Nair, Advocate.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS .... Respondents
Through Ms.Sujata Kashyap, Advocate for
Respondents No.1 to 4.
Mr.Atul Kumar, Advocate for Respondent No.5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN
O R D E R
11.08.2005
Application was made on behalf of the Petitioner for changing subjects from Social Science to Painting by the School concerned, which request was allowed by the CBSE keeping the Petitioner's circumstances in view.
The Petitioner had appeared in the Common Entrance Test, 2005 and was found meritorious for admission to the Diploma in Computer Engineering. However, at the time when the fees were being deposited, by the Petitioner, his candidature has been cancelled by Respondent No.2, Board of Technical Education, Delhi acting through Respondent No.3, Gobind Ballabh Pant Polytechnic on the grounds that the Petitioner had not studied Social Science as one of his subjects in the Xth Class. The minimum eligibility as contained in the Information Bulletin for Admission to Full Time Diploma Programme in Polytechnics, CET-2005:
Since the Petitioner has not appeared in Social Science at the stage of Class X, his candidature has been cancelled. It has been contended that in the Common Entrance Test there are no questions pertaining to Social Science. The argument that this subject may not be essentially relevant for Computer Engineering is indeed an attractive one. A review by the Respondent may be necessary.
Regrettably, the Petitioner cannot avail the benefits of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 since for reasons which I find inexplicable, only physical disabilities of three kinds are contemplated by that Act. This Court had occasion to observe the possible incongruity in this Statute in the context of a person suffering from heart ailment in Kumar Bharat Prasand Narain Singh Vs. Airport Authority of India, 2005 (5) AD (DELHI) 513.
Parliament may consider whether amendments are called for.
In a case where a mental disorder or disability is being suffered there appears to be no justification to exclude such persons from the meagre 3% reservation for the disabled. This is especially so because of the existence of National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Rules, 2000 which could possibly bring succour to the Petitioner if the Act is amended. Had the Petitioner been eligible for consideration under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 the impasse in which he find himself may not have transpired at all.
The marks obtained by the Petitioner indicate that he has overcome his affliction. But nevertheless he has been shut out from pursuing a course in which he has already proved his merit. Educators are becoming too bureaucratic.
Unfortunately for the Petitioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution this Court would ordinarily not issue Writs of Mandamus or any other Orders which would have the effect of re-writing norms which have been spelt out well in advance by the Respondents concerned. Therefore, although the Petitioner is entitled to special consideration, which he has not received at the hands of the Board of Technical Education, Delhi which has obdurately stuck to its minimum eligibility norms and thus no relief can be granted to the Petitioner.
The Writ Petition is disposed of in these terms.
Sd/-
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J
AUGUST 11, 2005
The Judgement
The HINDU
One, those who are entrusted with public dealing are not educated about the rights available to these special friends of ours. Secondly, when confronted, the officials would in almost all cases be rude and unaccomodating taking shelter under ambiguous circulars and notifications.
I had the unfortunate ocassion of handling such a situation in a case decided last year of a student who had dyslexia had excelled despite the peculiar circumstances he was in. While the Court, having regard to the case, tried its best to persuade the Administration, the Administration was adamant and took umbrage under an insensitive law and policy. The Court's helplessness is apparent from the Judgement.
************************************************************
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P.(C) 12761/2005
MASTER VENKATESH BHATNAGAR ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Vijay Nair, Advocate.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS .... Respondents
Through Ms.Sujata Kashyap, Advocate for
Respondents No.1 to 4.
Mr.Atul Kumar, Advocate for Respondent No.5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN
O R D E R
11.08.2005
Application was made on behalf of the Petitioner for changing subjects from Social Science to Painting by the School concerned, which request was allowed by the CBSE keeping the Petitioner's circumstances in view.
The Petitioner had appeared in the Common Entrance Test, 2005 and was found meritorious for admission to the Diploma in Computer Engineering. However, at the time when the fees were being deposited, by the Petitioner, his candidature has been cancelled by Respondent No.2, Board of Technical Education, Delhi acting through Respondent No.3, Gobind Ballabh Pant Polytechnic on the grounds that the Petitioner had not studied Social Science as one of his subjects in the Xth Class. The minimum eligibility as contained in the Information Bulletin for Admission to Full Time Diploma Programme in Polytechnics, CET-2005:
"Passed Xth class of 10+2 or Matric or any other exam recognized as equivalent to Xth class exam conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) or an equivalent recognized board with minimum 45% marks in the aggregate of five subjects securing minimum 33% marks in each of English, Maths, Science (separately in Theory and Practical), Social Science and one additional language (which reflects higher marks)."
Since the Petitioner has not appeared in Social Science at the stage of Class X, his candidature has been cancelled. It has been contended that in the Common Entrance Test there are no questions pertaining to Social Science. The argument that this subject may not be essentially relevant for Computer Engineering is indeed an attractive one. A review by the Respondent may be necessary.
Regrettably, the Petitioner cannot avail the benefits of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 since for reasons which I find inexplicable, only physical disabilities of three kinds are contemplated by that Act. This Court had occasion to observe the possible incongruity in this Statute in the context of a person suffering from heart ailment in Kumar Bharat Prasand Narain Singh Vs. Airport Authority of India, 2005 (5) AD (DELHI) 513.
Parliament may consider whether amendments are called for.
In a case where a mental disorder or disability is being suffered there appears to be no justification to exclude such persons from the meagre 3% reservation for the disabled. This is especially so because of the existence of National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Rules, 2000 which could possibly bring succour to the Petitioner if the Act is amended. Had the Petitioner been eligible for consideration under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 the impasse in which he find himself may not have transpired at all.
The marks obtained by the Petitioner indicate that he has overcome his affliction. But nevertheless he has been shut out from pursuing a course in which he has already proved his merit. Educators are becoming too bureaucratic.
Unfortunately for the Petitioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution this Court would ordinarily not issue Writs of Mandamus or any other Orders which would have the effect of re-writing norms which have been spelt out well in advance by the Respondents concerned. Therefore, although the Petitioner is entitled to special consideration, which he has not received at the hands of the Board of Technical Education, Delhi which has obdurately stuck to its minimum eligibility norms and thus no relief can be granted to the Petitioner.
The Writ Petition is disposed of in these terms.
Sd/-
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J
AUGUST 11, 2005
The Judgement
posted by Mahfuuz | 11:07 AM
1 Comments:
Sad to see such wonderful kids are not appreciated and encouraged by our system..
guess they would much rather give admission to a big shots kid who is stupid than to someone like Venkatesh who is deserving... hope he finds what he wants in life and is happy....
:)
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home