ARYAN RAJ Vs. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The impugned judgment has held against Shri Gonsalves's client-the appellant on two points, viz., that the bifurcation process under Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, would not apply, and that the aptitude test must be passed and cannot be exempted insofar as the appellant is concerned.

(3.) We are of the view that the High Court is correct on the bifurcation aspect. Further, insofar as the aptitude test having to be passed is concerned, the High Court is correct in saying that no exemption ought to be granted, but we follow the principle laid down in the Delhi High Court's judgment in Anamol Bhandari (Minor) through his father/Natural Guardian vs. Delhi Technological University 2012 (131) DRJ 583 in which the High Court has correctly held that people suffering from disabilities are also socially backward, and are therefore, at the very least, entitled to the same benefits as given to the Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes candidates.