REKHA TYAGI Vs. VICE CHANCELLEOR UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Doubting correctness of View expressed by a learned Single Judge regarding scope and ambit of Section 39 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (in short 'Act'), reference has been made to a Division Bench by another learned Single Judge and that is how the matter is before us.

(2.) The basic issue involved is whether Section 39 deals with reservation of seats in educational institutions or is relatabie to service. In Naveen Kumar A. vs. University of Delhi (CWP 4657/00) decided on 2.4th November 2000, it was held by learned Single Judge that in terms of Section 39 of the Act, all Government educational institutions and other institutions receiving aid from the Government shall reserve not less than three per cent seats for persons with disabilities and and it was obvious from that Section that educational institution in question is required to reserve not less than three per cent seats for physically handicapped persons. It was further held that a case for admission of the petitioner in that case was required to be considered by the University in that class of reservation category when this judgment was pressed into service by learned counsel for the petitioner, when the present writ petition was being heard, a doubt was expressed about correctness thereof. Learned Single ludge hearing the matter felt that since Chapter 39 forms a part of Chapter VI, dealing with "Employment", it cannot be relatabie to admission to education institutions.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though Section 39 forms a part of Chapter VI dealing with "Employment", it is totally unconnected with the concept of employment ,and really should form a part of Chapter V dealing with "Education". Merely because it forms part of Chapter VI dealing with "Employment", it cannot be said that legislative intent was to make it relatable to employment and not education. According to him various provisions in Chapter VI i.e. Sections 32 to 38 deal with employment and the modalities to be observed. Section 32 mandates reservation of posts for persons with disabilities and Section 39 indicates in clear language to make it relatable to reservation of seats for persons with disabilities. Learned counsel for the University of Delhi and All India Institute of Medical Sciences (in short 'AIIMS') submitted that the legislative intent is clearly apparent by making Section 39, a part of Chapter VI dealing with employment. Had the legislative intent been otherwise, there is no reason why it was not put in Chapter V with a definite and distinctive heading "Education". It is to be noted that in the present writ petition, AIIMS is not a party but is respondent No.1 in CWP 4363/01, which was heard alongwith this writ petition. It was highlighted by them that the expression 'seat' is not defined in the Act but there are several, provisions in other Chapters which deal with the expression "seat".