SAMBHAVANA Vs. DELHI UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition for a writ of mandamus the petitioner has sought a direction against the respondent University of Delhi as also the colleges affiliated to it to put in place a hundred point roster for recruitment of persons with disability and to determine the number of vacancies available for such persons. A direction to the respondents to strictly follow the principles laid down by the UGC for purpose of filling up of the vacancies due to persons with disabilities has also been prayed for apart from other further and incidental reliefs.

(2.) The genesis of the controversy lies in a resolution which the University of Delhi had passed way back on 16.7.1994 providing for 3% reservation for blind and Orthopaedically handicapped candidates in teaching depths of the University and the colleges affiliated to it. The resolution envisaged that the University and the colleges would publish for the information of all concerned the reservation for blind and Orthopaedically handicapped categories to enable such candidates to apply for appointment against the vacancies available to them. The said resolution was subsequently followed by what is known as the "Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation Act), 1995. This central legislation also provides for reservation of 3% vacancies including those in teaching depths of the universities and colleges for Orthopaedically and visually handicapped and those suffering from hearing impairment. The resolution passed by the University and the legislation on the subject notwithstanding the University of Delhi as also the colleges affiliated to it, appear to have taken no steps to ensure that the stipulated vacancies in teaching cadres were set apart and offered to persons with disabilities in terms of the resolution and the enactment referred to above. This led to the judicial determination of the obligation of the respondents to do so in CWP No. 2549/1995 heard and disposed of by a single Judge of this Court by an order dated 30.1.2001. A reading of the said order which has attained finality would show that the university as also the colleges were found to have done little to ensure that the benefit of the reservation reached those for whom the same was meant. The Court noticed that the information provided by the departments of the university and colleges did not show the appointment of even a single disabled person during the academic year 1994 and thereafter till the date of the judgment except those made by Ambedkar College. The Court also noticed that various excuses had been given from time to time by the university as also the colleges for their failure to comply with the legal requirements. The university, observed the court, had washed its hands off the issue by saying that in spite of the directions of the Vice-Chancellor to the colleges to comply with the resolution, the colleges had not bothered to do the needful. Another excuse given for non implementation of the reservation was that the UGC had not agreed with the resolution passed by the university. These excuses, the Court held, were wholly meaningless having regard to the fact that the Disability Act had come into force which made it mandatory for the respondents to reserve 3% posts for handicap candidates. Suffice it to say that having found an all round failure on the part of the university as also the colleges in extending the benefit of reservation to those who qualified for the same the Court allowed the writ petition with the following specific directions:-

(3.) The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner society promoted by a group of disabled persons primarily comprising those suffering from visual impairement and employed in teaching and non-teaching positions in Delhi University. The society, it appears, has been active in various institutions of Delhi and working in larger interest of persons with disabilities. The grievance of the petitioner mainly is that despite the legislative measures and a clear mandate of the law in favour of reservation to the extent of 3% and despite the directions issued by this Court in the judgment referred to earlier, nothing has been done by either the university or the colleges to implement the reservation policy. The petitioner has in that backdrop prayed for a mandamus against the respondents to put in place a hundred point roster for persons with disabilities to ensure that the number of vacancies due to them is worked out on the basis of the cadre strength in each discipline and the same are offered to persons eligible for appointment against the same.