LAWS(DLH)-2012-7-686

AMIT KUMAR (MINOR) Vs. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

Decided On July 26, 2012
Amit Kumar (Minor) Appellant
V/S
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice to show cause as to why petition be not admitted. Counsel for the respondent accepts notice. Rule. With the consent of counsel for the parties writ petition is set down for final hearing and disposal.

(2.) The petitioner is stated to be orthopedically handicapped since birth due to stiffness in his knee and hip. He is stated to be suffering from multiple exostosis (formation of a new bone on the surface of the bone). In support of his disability the petitioner relies on a certificate issued by the Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital, Laheriasarai dated 06.08.2005 certifying that the petitioner is 40% disabled. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the certificate has been issued by a competent authority as per the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to in short as the "Act''). The petitioner also relies upon a letter dated 17.08.2005 wherein it has been certified that the certificate dated 06.08.2005 is a valid certificate. Petitioner completed his class XII examination and secured 74% marks in the Science stream. In November, 2011 the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) invited applications for the Joint Entrance Examination of IIT-JEE 2012. The petitioner applied under the physically handicapped quota for the examination conducted on 18.04.2012. The result of this examination was declared on 18.05.2012. The petitioner scored GEPD 113 rank in IIT-JEE 2012. Thereafter, the petitioner was informed to appear for a medical examination which was scheduled to be conducted on 05.06.2012. It is this procedure which is under challenge in the present proceedings as counsel for the petitioner submits that the procedure adopted by the IIT, Delhi is illegal, unjustified and unwarranted in view of the fact that the petitioner has a valid certificate certifying that the petitioner is suffering from 40% disability.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the petitioner underwent the medical examination as conducted at the instance of IIT on 05.06.2012. As per the medical examination, the board opined that petitioner was suffering from only 18% disability. Accordingly, the petitioner was disqualified for admission in the IIT.