RAMCHANDRA TANDI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the third Sunday of March every year World Disabled Day is observed. Petitioners are the guardians of thirty-one deaf and dumb boys, who have alleged that the State and its functionaries have turned blind to their problems and plights. These boys along with about thirty others are students of "Deaf and Dumb Section" of Physically Handicapped School situated at Bargarh. State has refused to accord recognition and provide grant-in-aid to this section. The said action is assailed by the petitioners attributing arbitrariness, and lack of concern.

(2.) The heart-rending background described by the petitioners is as follows:

(3.) In the counter-affidavit it has been stated that direction was given to close the deaf and dumb section with effect from 30-8-1993. The plea is that since a voluntary organisation had taken up the job of running the school, it was duty bound to see its smooth continuance, and State has no obligation to provide financial assistance. It is, however, accepted that the school was started to impart education to the deaf and dumb, blind and mentally retarded children and Government has recognised the need for blind and mentally retarded school. The recognition was granted for the blind section on 1-10-1992 in respect of 22 students, and for mentally retarded section with 17 students for the purpose of grant-in-aid. It is stated that there are two other schools for the hearing impaired children in the undivided district of Sambalpur, i.e., one at Surla under the Education Department, and the other at Jhankeda in Padampur subdivision run by Gopabandhu Welfare Organisation. To avoid unnecessary financial burden on the State Government, it was decided not to recognise the deaf and dumb section. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for State, further, stressed that if a voluntary organisation undertook the job of running the deaf and dumb section, it had the responsibility to arrange for fiinance, and cannot as a matter of right seek financial assistance from the State. With reference to the counter-affidavit it is stated that the deaf and dumb are not so handicapped for movement like the blind, mentally retarded students, and therefore, the other two categories stand on a different footing. The usual plea of lack of financial resources of the State and need for financial austerity is also highlighted.