W.P. No v. State of Chhattisgarh

Mr. Rahul Jha <& Mr. Jiten|jra Pali, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. &andeep Dubey, ^ov| 1-. Advocate for the State/respondents No.l to 3. Mr. Moinindra Shrivastavoil. Senior Advocate with AAr. Amrito Das, Advocate for respondents No.4 Mr. A.K. Bhoite, Associ^ ft5. i<|ite Professor College, Raipur, and Officer-in"^ (Pharmacology)/ AAedical -^harge of the case is also present in the Court. So far no return has Ibeen filed on behalf of the State/ respondents. Notices were issi| i|ied on 26-9-2005. As the tost date of admission in Medicai Colle9es i| fdst approaching i.e. 30 September, 2005/therefore, counsel for th< parties were heard finally- The aise of the petitione^ is that he appeared in Pre Medical Test conducted by the respondent 3[ Jtate for the academic session 2005-06 and the petitioner was pbced jn^ the merit list at SI.No.4 in handicopped ciass candidates. The candidal |"e placed at SI-No-1 in tiie hGindicapped class namely, Samitraj Prasad |ias been admitted in a medical cotle9e outside the State.

The candidate placed at SI.No.2 namely, Manpreet Sin9h (Surudatt-a, S/o Manjee-) Singh has already been admitted in Jawaharlal Nehru Medical Col llege, Raipur, where the petitioner 50 XI-HC-78 ^wf <^jiqirt<4, u>TTl^'ll<o, Rlrtl<<-iy'< 4ii*ic$T^m^ ..^.:.TT.:.fc7L<tT/. STT^^T q^q? (^cli^clc^) 3TT^$T<PTR-lJ<h asnsn^sTawFp <^l<(Io<nv1 ^MrtY^'fe^^^-dl^ ^3Tf^?3I^?T seeking admission. Jhe candida ^e who was placed at SI-No.3 nameiy, Miss Hemu Tandon has been admi ifted in the Chhattisgarh Institute of AAedical Scienc^s, Bilaspur agojinst the handicapped class quota. The petitioner, being placed at SIJ .h^o.4, is entitled for admission against the disabled/handicapped class quol ra. I have heard learned coui [isel for the parties. Mr. Jha, learned counse for the petitioner argued that against one seat of handicapped/disabl id quota from the unreserved category, Manpreet Singh Gurudatta, 5/<^ 1 Manjeet Singh, a handicapped candidate, has been given admission who ^/as at SI.No.2 in the merit list, and one candidate namely Miss Sangc ?ta has been given admission against handicapped/disabled quota as 15T candidate.

So fdr as the third seat is concerned, is still lyingj vacant. ^Therefore, the petitioner entitJed for the ^3iid admissionj Leamed counsel further submitted that th ree seats of Central Poo 1 qi| liota have been reverted and so far the Central ^ovemment has not lominated any candidate of 5C or OBC disabled/hGndicapped against t| \ose three seats. In view of the spirit b^hind the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of lights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 't^e (hereinafter referred to as 'th|< Act. 1995'), and particularly Section 39 XI-HC-78 ;-> 1?1 ^;Er;;:ZTR[7^T, t9-nl'(-i<i<», Roi1<-f^ *tm^i^1^l^ .40:.^. ;:..\...'. 3TI^?T q^^ (^crfg6R[) 3TI^^T<f5TR^icb ?TSn3TT^$T^1FTW ^PTT^ ;?Tf^?f 3TT^$T <pi^Io<nvi ^s^oT^'f^^f^Fjt^-cj^ ^sri^HSIT^ST of the Act, 1995, it js the ^luty of every (^overnment institution to reserve not less thcxn 3% seatsj for the disabled/handicapped candidates.

Total seats of the Jaw4harlal Nehru Medical College, Raipur, are 100, out of which 82 seats ane| to be filled by the State and three seQts of Central Pool have been ^eyerted back thereby, the respondent Jawaharlai Nehru Medical Co 11^9^ ^ Raipur, is required to fiil up 85 seats. Even otherwise, total seats of| |the Medical College, Raipur are 100. Even if 15% seats are to be filledl up by the A II India Quota, those seats cannot be set apqrt for the |)urpose of Section 39 of the Act, 1995. Three per cent re^rvation fo^r o|r disabled candidates has to be made 3% of the total seats of the coll^g^ ^ looking to the spirit of Section 39 of the Act, 1995. Therefore, fhe respondents ought to have admitted three students from the 3{3ibled/handicapped quota and particularly when the candidate of 5C or (pBC is not availabie in that case, the third seat must have been aJlotted t]p the petitioner. On the other hand, Mr.| Dubey, learned ^ovt.

Advocate appearing for 1+ie State/respondents Nlo ).l to 3 argued that only 82 seats are available to the State (Soverhment and 3% of 82 comes to 2 seats, therefore, the third candidat^ cannot be admitted. He further argued that the petitioner comes fro|m general category and one Mr. Manpreet Singh ^urudatta has already ]peen given admission against the disabled II! l! 2 \3-cc|^<||<<lrt<1, tPTH1<-l'll<o, R|ril'<-1^ TFi^ra?mq» •••—-'••••'-••••/•y--.- ^200^ STT^^T traq? (i|ciij6i<g) 3TT^^T<PTR^i<b Wff3TT^$Trt)^i<b ?mTW[ ^R'd 3TT^$T -^ <pi<<[w<TI<i <ii+ioT^ffe^|' ^Ri^j^ ^arf^raii^CT quota in general aategory, the^efore the petitioner is not entitled for admission. Havin9 heard learned copnsel for the parties, I have per^used the record. Section 39 of the A[ ;t, 1995/ which provides reservation for disabled persons envisuiges tha1| "All educational persons educational institutions recei shall reserve notl for persons with disabilitJes.--AIJ Ihstjtutions to reserv®seats for ^ovemment hitions and other educational i^ing aid from the Sovemment, jess than three per cent seats lisabilities.

" The object behind brin^ing this legislation was the proclamation made at the meeting to laun| launbh the Asian and Pacific Decade of 1+ie Disabled Persons 1993-2002 c^ o|t Beijing from 1st to 15th becember, 1992. It has been made clear to ad<fot the resolution of the said meeting, the proclamation on the Full Parlfcipation and Equality of the People with Disabilities in the Asian and F|acific Region, In order to implement the said proctamation the Act, 19915 has been enacted. Reading of Section 39 >f the Act, 1995, makes it ctear that not iess than 3% seats are to institution-s for the persons w be reserved in ^ovemment educationai jth disabilities. In -riiis provision, it has not been mentioned that the re^ re^ervation has to be made looking to the cate9ory of ccxndidates. Hc|weyer, in order to fuifill and meet SP/FS/2005-20,000 i u3 \3w|'rqiqic)«,u>-al1<-l<l<», RlciN4^ *1P1<^T9»mq» _;_ M<^< ^Ft200^ / 3TI^9T q^l?

(^jcrfgel^) OT^^TcCTR^Jch ^ffan^^T^^i^b ?^TT^R ^rfg^T 3TT^^T ci>j<4[o<Tlyt^ti+ioT ff f^St \Vj\^y< ^3rf^T3T|^?T requirement of Section 39 of ^he Act, 1995, the State ^overnment of Chhatt-isgarh while prescribin^ the procedure for admission to the \--t- Jawaharlai Nehru AAedical Colle^e, Raipur, and CIAAS, Bibspur, a specific provision was made that looking |to the number of seats this reservation will be in horizontal for each cal egory and accordingly, one seat each was reserved for unreserved catego [y and 5T; In the brochure, only one^ seat has been shown to be reserved for unreserved category ond other ^wo seats have not been reserved for any other category. Whereas, the 4r"ended provision of sub-rule (5)0f Rule 4 of the Admission Rules envisc^es that in all categories of seats, which are to be filled through comj^ letitive examination, there shall be 3% reservation Sainik ^ss, freedom fighter class, disabled/handicapped class.

As [82 seats were avaiiable for admission by the State ^overnment and rem^ining 3 seats were reserved for Central Pool quota, GBid so far, -tiie Ce^trai ©overnmenthas not nominated any "efore, total 85 seats are to be filled by person against those seats/ the the Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Raipur, as such, in view of the provisions of Section 39 of the Act, 1995, th& respondents are required to fil! up at least 3 seats frotji disabled class couididates. As per the information given, one candidat4 from unreserved category i.e, Manpreet Singh ^urudatta has already ^een admitted and one cflindidate Kum. SP/FS/2005-20,000 •S.SSl^'^'^S^ \3wi '-qi«io«,yTTI<<^i<&, RirtK-iy^ <TF1c5T^m^ ......'A?:.P.-..fc7.L^/ ^2006^ 3TT^$T q^P (<3?fg6H5) 3TT^^T<prR^ich ?TW3n^$T^^icb ^RTT^^rf^TCT^^T ~<6 (pi<4[o<nyi <ii^oV^"fe^£l^RI^K ^3T^T^^T Soingeeta has been admitted 'om 5T category/ cxnd the third %at is lying vacant, as no candidate fr^r ?m SC & OBC category is available.

Even no reservation for SC and di^al ^abled/handicapped class candidates has been made. Admitt-edly, the ^etitioner is from disabled/handiccpped class, therefore, being a thir< candidate of the diaibled/handicapped class ond looking to the spiri ift- of Section 39 of the Act, 1995, the petitioner is entitled for admh sion, In the resutt/the writ p^ ^tition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the casel of the petitioner for admission to the M.B.B-S. course in Raipur |Aedicat College against the disabled/ handicapped quota. Before parting with thi^ order, I woutd like to observe that t'tl the arguments were conclud€|d ^d the Officer-in-charge of the State/ respondents or the ^overnm^nt Advocate has not stated that three seats which have been revert^c ld from the Central Pool have been filled up. During dictation of this ?rder, it was informed that these three seats are filled up.

But the 4dnr ^dmission in Medical Colleges are open till 30th September, 2005, as per made after filing of this w{ |t'he Apex Court order, and the admissions petition with the knowledge of respondents are subject to th| decision of this Court. Therefore, even if any admission is made, it sllall not affect the case of the petitioner SP/FS/2005-20,000 1 ^^^^^:'9*w ^5 XI-HC-78 vjxwi ^i^io«,tp-ul'<i<i<?, Rioi^^ W+lc^l^^T^ s> \ ^ ^200^ 3TT^?T q^^ (I3?f3^) ^n^^T^Rnicn ^3i^$Ta?qra? ^^TT^R^rf^T 3TT^^T -7-1 <PI^Ic5<Tlv1 H!<4c^f^ai^^t ^Rl^-CIS ^3Tf^:?3H^$T and the respondents are directec| to consider the case of the petitioner for admission against the third se^xt of disabled quota. In view of this order, M.(^[. .)P.No.3819/2005 & I.A.No.8427/2005 stand disposed of. Parties are entitled for cerftified copy of this order. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge ^en^v hN^- <v \ \..: << ^ ^ <^1 ^ON ^? ^ ^/.t ^'