In the High Court of Rajasthan
C.W.P. No. 1239 of 2000
Dr. Vijay Kumar Agarwal (orthopedically handicapped) was registered as a doctor with the Medical Council after completing his internship in January 2000. When he applied for a PG course there was no reservation provided for physically handicapped persons, for pursuing studies of PG Courses, under Ordinance 278-E of the University Ordinances. Subsequently, the Ordinances 278-E and 278-G were amended, providing three per cent reservation to physically handicapped persons, in PG Courses and in PG Diploma Courses, with effect from 20-11-2000 . Dr Agarwal filed a writ petition to provide him three per cent reservation in admission in PG Medical Course, on the basis of his result declared in Pre-PG Entrance Examination, 2000. The University of Rajasthan, filed a detailed return stating that the amendments were prospective in nature and hence could not be given with retrospective effect and further that the clause referred to (no 39) was under the section on Employment (of the PWD Act) and hence not applicable in the present case.
The Details
Clause 39 of the PWD of 1996, states that all Government educational institutions and other educational institutions, receiving aid from the Government, is required to reserve not less than three per cent seats, for persons with disabilities.
The Arguments
The counsel for the University argued that the provision of the sections in the Act that deals with reservations refers to the education of children and schemes for non-formal education, and hence was not entitled to three per cent reservation under the unamended Ordinance 278-E of the University Ordinances or retrospectively under the amended ordinance.
The Judgment
It was judged that with reference to the provisions of the Constitution (Article 254 (2) of the Constitution) and the PWD Act of 1996, that what was implicit under Ordinances 278-E and 278-G of University Ordinances, prior to 20-11-2000 , was made explicit by amending it with effect from 20-11-2000 .
Further, the other arguments relating to the potential damage to the academic excellence of the Institution were repelled on the grounds that the basic norms of the course were not being flouted by the admission of the candidate and hence
Decided On: 12.02.2001
Hon’ble Judges: R.R. Yadav, J.
Counsels: For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: S.P. Sharma, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: Narendra Jain and R.A. Katta, Advs.
Acts/Rules/Orders: Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1996 – Section 39; University of Rajasthan Act , 1946 – Section 30; University of Rajasthan Ordinances – Ordinance 278E and 278G