Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Petitioner Vaibhav Bajaj, who was suffering from dyslexia and had sought admission in a college which was near his residence. While applying for admission to undergraduate courses conducted by the University of Delhi for the academic year 2018-2019, the petitioner listed Sri Guru Gobind Singh College of Commerce (SGGC) as his first preference and Kirori Mal College (KMC) as his second, given their proximity to his residence. The admission was sought against the quota of vacancies available for disabled candidates in these two colleges. the petitioner failed to secure the cut-off marks for admission under the quota of seats reserved for students suffering from disability. He could not secure admission to either of the said colleges. Consequently, the petitioner had to take admission in a college which was 28 kilometres from his residence. He alleged that the two colleges were defaulters in the matter of preserving 5% of its seats for persons with disability in terms of Section 32 of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act (RPWD Act). Reliance was also placed on a circular issued by Delhi University dated July 4, 2015, to this effect. Also, argued that candidates suffering from learning disabilities stood on an entirely different pedestal as compared to candidates suffering from other forms of disability. Further submitted that the process of fixing of cut-offs was very scientific and that the cut-offs were gradually lowered for all categories to accommodate the required number of candidates suffering from disabilities within the meaning of the RPWD Act. Excessive lowering of the cut-off would result in an excess of admissions, it was apprehended. The Court considered the contention with respect to setting different cut-offs for candidates suffering from learning disabilities and remarked that the submission was “undeniably attractive”. The court has ruled out that no such mandate was found in the RPWD Act that candidates suffering from intellectual disabilities to be admitted at a substantially lower cut-off as compared to candidates suffering from other forms of disability. The Court thus held that although the mandate of Section 32 could not be avoided by universities, a court could not hold that the cut-offs for admission of candidates with an intellectual or learning disability were required to be lowered. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
86540
103860
630
114
59824