Page 1
WP(C)NO.116/1998 with connected matters
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL/APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 116 OF 1998
JUSTICE SUNANDA BHANDARE FOUNDATION Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
U.O.I. & ANR Respondent(s)
WITH
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 115 OF 1998
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 430 OF 2000
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6442 OF 1998
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6443 OF 1998
J U D G M E N T
R.M. LODHA, J. :
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 116 of 1998
In this Writ Petition filed by the petitioner
– a charitable trust, the prayers made are (i) for
implementation of the provisions of the Persons with
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of
Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short,
'1995 Act'), (ii) direction for the reservation
Page 2
WP(C)NO.116/1998 with connected matters
2
of 1% of the identified teaching posts in the
faculties and college of various Universities in
terms of Section 33 of the 1995 Act, and (iii) for
declaration that denial of appointment to the
visually disabled persons in the faculties and
college of various Universities in the identified
posts is violative of their fundamental rights
guaranteed under Articles 14 and 15 read with
Article 41 of the Constitution of India.
2. Initially, two respondents, namely, (one)
Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of
Welfare and (two) University Grants Commission
(U.G.C.) through its Chairperson were impleaded as
party respondents.
3. On 07.10.1998, the Court ordered impleadment
of the States and so also the Union Territories and,
accordingly, respondent Nos. 3 to 34 were impleaded
as party respondents.
4. On 13.09.2001, the Court directed the Chief
Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Ministry
of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of
India to be impleaded as party respondent and
Page 3
WP(C)NO.116/1998 with connected matters
3
consequently it has been impleaded as respondent
No. 35.
5. Then on 18.02.2009, the Court directed
Commissioners for Persons with Disabilities of
various States and Union Territories to be impleaded
as party respondents and consequently respondent
Nos. 36 to 70 have been impleaded who are
Commissioners for Persons with Disabilities in
different States and Union Territories.
6. Certain interim orders have been passed by
this Court from time to time.
7. Insofar as U.G.C. (respondent No. 2) is
concerned, the Court was informed on 19.03.2002
through counter affidavit that U.G.C. has acted in
compliance of the 1995 Act. In paras 3, 6, 7 and 8 of
the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Chief
Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, it was
stated :
"3. It is humbly submitted that in
pursuance of Section 32 of the Persons
with Disabilities Act (Equal
Opportunities Protection of Rights and
Full participation) Act, 1995, the
Page 4
WP(C)NO.116/1998 with connected matters
4
appropriate government (Government of
India) has updated the list of identified
posts. This list has been issued vide
Extraordinary Gazette Notification No.
178 dated 30.6.2001. In this list, the
posts of University/College/School
Teacher for the blind and low-vision have
been listed at Sl. No. 24-27 on page No.
592.
6. The Chief Commissioner for
Person with Disabilities has taken
cognizance of the arrangements provided
by the University Grants Commission for
persons with disabilities by way of
extending 5% relaxation in cut off marks,
appearing in the NET for Junior Research
Fellowship and Lectuership. Thus, the
arrangement extended by UGC is in
consonance with the policy stand taken by
Govt. of India in so far as relaxation
in minimum standard is concerned.
Relaxation in standards has been favoured
only when the candidates belonging to
reserved categories are not available on
the basis of the general standard to fill
all the vacancies reserved for them.
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.
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 & General
Page 5
WP(C)NO.116/1998 with connected matters
5
categories are deprived of the relaxation
of 5 % marks at masters' level.
8. 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."
8. Thus, insofar as U.G.C. is concerned, this
Court in the order 19.03.2002 observed that nothing
survives for consideration and the matter is disposed
of as against U.G.C.
9. On 19.07.2006, the Court directed the Union of
India and the State Governments to file their
responses in the form of affidavits within a period of
four weeks, failing which it was observed that the
Court may be compelled to direct personal appearance
of the Chief Secretaries of the concerned States
though the Court would like to avoid in making such a
direction. Some of the States have filed their
responses and some have not.
Page 6
WP(C)NO.116/1998 with connected matters
6
10. Be that as it may, the beneficial provisions
of the 1995 Act cannot be allowed to remain only on
paper for years and thereby defeating the very purpose
of such law and legislative policy. The Union, States,
Union Territories and all those upon whom obligation
has been cast under the 1995 Act have to effectively
implement it. As a matter of fact, the role of the
governments in the matter such as this has to be
proactive. In the matters of providing relief to
those who are differently abled, the approach and
attitude of the executive must be liberal and relief
oriented and not obstructive or lethargic. A little
concern for this class who are differently abled can
do wonders in their life and help them stand on their
own and not remain on mercy of others. A welfare
State, that India is, must accord its best and special
attention to a section of our society which comprises
of differently abled citizens. This is true equality
and effective conferment of equal opportunity.
11. More than 18 years have passed since the 1995
Act came to be passed and yet we are confronted with
the problem of implementation of the 1995 Act in its
Page 7
WP(C)NO.116/1998 with connected matters
7
letter and spirit by the Union, States, Union
Territories and other establishments to which it is
made applicable.
12. Ms. Sunita Sharma, learned counsel for the
Union of India, informs us that insofar as Union of
India is concerned, it has implemented the provisions
of the 1995 Act and the reservation of 1% of the
identified teaching posts in the faculties and college
of various Universities in terms of Section 33 of the
1995 Act has been done.
13. In our view, the 1995 Act has to be
implemented in the letter and spirit by the Central
Government, State Governments and Union Territories
without any delay, if not implemented so far.
14. We, accordingly, direct the Central
Government, State Governments and Union Territories to
implement the provisions of the 1995 Act immediately
and positively by the end of 2014.
15. The Secretary, Ministry of Welfare, Government
of India, the Chief Secretaries of the States, the
Administrators of Union Territories, the Chief
Commissioner of the Union of India and the
Page 8
WP(C)NO.116/1998 with connected matters
8
Commissioners of the State Governments and Union
Territories shall ensure implementation of the 1995
Act in all respects including with regard to visually
disabled persons within the above time.
16. Writ Petition is disposed of in the above
terms.
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 115 of 1998, Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 430 of 2000, Civil Appeal No. 6442 of
1998 and Civil Appeal No. 6443 of 199 8
Writ Petitions and Appeals are disposed of in
terms of the judgment passed today in Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 116 of 1998.
2. No costs.
3. Interlocutory Applications for intervention
and impleadment filed in Civil Appeal No. 6442 of
1998, in view of the above, do not survive and they
stand disposed of as such.
..............................J.
( R.M. LODHA )
Page 9
WP(C)NO.116/1998 with connected matters
9
..............................J.
( SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA )
NEW DELHI; ..............................J.
MARCH 26, 2014 ( DIPAK MISRA )
WP(C)NO.116/1998 with connected matters
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL/APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 116 OF 1998
JUSTICE SUNANDA BHANDARE FOUNDATION Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
U.O.I. & ANR Respondent(s)
WITH
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 115 OF 1998
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 430 OF 2000
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6442 OF 1998
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6443 OF 1998
J U D G M E N T
R.M. LODHA, J. :
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 116 of 1998
In this Writ Petition filed by the petitioner
– a charitable trust, the prayers made are (i) for
implementation of the provisions of the Persons with
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of
Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short,
'1995 Act'), (ii) direction for the reservation
Page 2
WP(C)NO.116/1998 with connected matters
2
of 1% of the identified teaching posts in the
faculties and college of various Universities in
terms of Section 33 of the 1995 Act, and (iii) for
declaration that denial of appointment to the
visually disabled persons in the faculties and
college of various Universities in the identified
posts is violative of their fundamental rights
guaranteed under Articles 14 and 15 read with
Article 41 of the Constitution of India.
2. Initially, two respondents, namely, (one)
Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of
Welfare and (two) University Grants Commission
(U.G.C.) through its Chairperson were impleaded as
party respondents.
3. On 07.10.1998, the Court ordered impleadment
of the States and so also the Union Territories and,
accordingly, respondent Nos. 3 to 34 were impleaded
as party respondents.
4. On 13.09.2001, the Court directed the Chief
Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Ministry
of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of
India to be impleaded as party respondent and
Page 3
WP(C)NO.116/1998 with connected matters
3
consequently it has been impleaded as respondent
No. 35.
5. Then on 18.02.2009, the Court directed
Commissioners for Persons with Disabilities of
various States and Union Territories to be impleaded
as party respondents and consequently respondent
Nos. 36 to 70 have been impleaded who are
Commissioners for Persons with Disabilities in
different States and Union Territories.
6. Certain interim orders have been passed by
this Court from time to time.
7. Insofar as U.G.C. (respondent No. 2) is
concerned, the Court was informed on 19.03.2002
through counter affidavit that U.G.C. has acted in
compliance of the 1995 Act. In paras 3, 6, 7 and 8 of
the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Chief
Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, it was
stated :
"3. It is humbly submitted that in
pursuance of Section 32 of the Persons
with Disabilities Act (Equal
Opportunities Protection of Rights and
Full participation) Act, 1995, the
Page 4
WP(C)NO.116/1998 with connected matters
4
appropriate government (Government of
India) has updated the list of identified
posts. This list has been issued vide
Extraordinary Gazette Notification No.
178 dated 30.6.2001. In this list, the
posts of University/College/School
Teacher for the blind and low-vision have
been listed at Sl. No. 24-27 on page No.
592.
6. The Chief Commissioner for
Person with Disabilities has taken
cognizance of the arrangements provided
by the University Grants Commission for
persons with disabilities by way of
extending 5% relaxation in cut off marks,
appearing in the NET for Junior Research
Fellowship and Lectuership. Thus, the
arrangement extended by UGC is in
consonance with the policy stand taken by
Govt. of India in so far as relaxation
in minimum standard is concerned.
Relaxation in standards has been favoured
only when the candidates belonging to
reserved categories are not available on
the basis of the general standard to fill
all the vacancies reserved for them.
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.
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 & General
Page 5
WP(C)NO.116/1998 with connected matters
5
categories are deprived of the relaxation
of 5 % marks at masters' level.
8. 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."
8. Thus, insofar as U.G.C. is concerned, this
Court in the order 19.03.2002 observed that nothing
survives for consideration and the matter is disposed
of as against U.G.C.
9. On 19.07.2006, the Court directed the Union of
India and the State Governments to file their
responses in the form of affidavits within a period of
four weeks, failing which it was observed that the
Court may be compelled to direct personal appearance
of the Chief Secretaries of the concerned States
though the Court would like to avoid in making such a
direction. Some of the States have filed their
responses and some have not.
Page 6
WP(C)NO.116/1998 with connected matters
6
10. Be that as it may, the beneficial provisions
of the 1995 Act cannot be allowed to remain only on
paper for years and thereby defeating the very purpose
of such law and legislative policy. The Union, States,
Union Territories and all those upon whom obligation
has been cast under the 1995 Act have to effectively
implement it. As a matter of fact, the role of the
governments in the matter such as this has to be
proactive. In the matters of providing relief to
those who are differently abled, the approach and
attitude of the executive must be liberal and relief
oriented and not obstructive or lethargic. A little
concern for this class who are differently abled can
do wonders in their life and help them stand on their
own and not remain on mercy of others. A welfare
State, that India is, must accord its best and special
attention to a section of our society which comprises
of differently abled citizens. This is true equality
and effective conferment of equal opportunity.
11. More than 18 years have passed since the 1995
Act came to be passed and yet we are confronted with
the problem of implementation of the 1995 Act in its
Page 7
WP(C)NO.116/1998 with connected matters
7
letter and spirit by the Union, States, Union
Territories and other establishments to which it is
made applicable.
12. Ms. Sunita Sharma, learned counsel for the
Union of India, informs us that insofar as Union of
India is concerned, it has implemented the provisions
of the 1995 Act and the reservation of 1% of the
identified teaching posts in the faculties and college
of various Universities in terms of Section 33 of the
1995 Act has been done.
13. In our view, the 1995 Act has to be
implemented in the letter and spirit by the Central
Government, State Governments and Union Territories
without any delay, if not implemented so far.
14. We, accordingly, direct the Central
Government, State Governments and Union Territories to
implement the provisions of the 1995 Act immediately
and positively by the end of 2014.
15. The Secretary, Ministry of Welfare, Government
of India, the Chief Secretaries of the States, the
Administrators of Union Territories, the Chief
Commissioner of the Union of India and the
Page 8
WP(C)NO.116/1998 with connected matters
8
Commissioners of the State Governments and Union
Territories shall ensure implementation of the 1995
Act in all respects including with regard to visually
disabled persons within the above time.
16. Writ Petition is disposed of in the above
terms.
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 115 of 1998, Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 430 of 2000, Civil Appeal No. 6442 of
1998 and Civil Appeal No. 6443 of 199 8
Writ Petitions and Appeals are disposed of in
terms of the judgment passed today in Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 116 of 1998.
2. No costs.
3. Interlocutory Applications for intervention
and impleadment filed in Civil Appeal No. 6442 of
1998, in view of the above, do not survive and they
stand disposed of as such.
..............................J.
( R.M. LODHA )
Page 9
WP(C)NO.116/1998 with connected matters
9
..............................J.
( SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA )
NEW DELHI; ..............................J.
MARCH 26, 2014 ( DIPAK MISRA )
No comments:
Post a Comment