VIBHU DAYAL SHARMA Vs. THE DIRECTOR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner resides in Kurukshetra, Haryana. He wants to become an Engineer specializing in Computer Science and Technology. Educational facilities for B.Tech are not available in his home town. Computer Science and Technology is a branch of engineering not available at National Institute of Technology at Kurukshetra. Seats for the current session in other disciplines at the National Institute of Technology at Kurukshetra stand filled up. The nearest place where he could receive such education in the branch of Computer Science is at NIT -Jalandhar, where an unfilled seat is vacant. The petitioner is suffering from a rare medical condition called Medulloblastoma and is being treated for malignant brain tumour. He pleads that he underwent major Neurosurgery in 1999 at PGI, Chandigarh and is being presently treated at the Department of Neurosurgery and Department of Radiotherapy, PGI, Chandigarh. Due to this condition, he is unable to travel far without help to pursue further studies and is anchored to Chandigarh for his continued treatment. He pleads that he appeared for the All India Engineering Entrance Examination AIEEE -2011. His result was declared. He obtained 35 marks in the examination. He claims that 18 marks are sufficient to be called to participate in AIEEE Counselling in the "Physically Handicapped Category". The Central Counselling Board -2011 met at Surathkal (Mangalore) Karnataka for admissions to the B.Tech degree course. He applied under the physically handicapped category. He claims that though there is reservation for physically handicapped students in the prospectus issued by the CCB -2011 but no seat has been reserved for a student suffering from Cancer. The petitioner made a representation on 10.08.2011 to the respondents for reservation of a seat in the Department of Computer Science and Technology at NIT -Jalandhar (P -6) and to consider his case for admission. That is where the matter is at a standstill. As there has been no consideration of his request he has approached this Court though this writ petition filed on 29.08.2011.

(2.) THIS Court issued notice of motion on the petition on 30.08.2011. On completion of service of summons, the contesting respondent Nos. 1 and 2 appeared and filed their written statement. Respondent No. 3 -NIT, Kurukshetra has also filed a response stating that it has unnecessarily been impleaded as a party when no relief has been sought against it. The authority to make the admissions for the Academic Session 2011 -12 vest in the first respondent, the HRD Ministry, New Delhi to make admissions for B.Tech/B.E/B.Arch. in all the NITs and other central institutes on the basis of the result of the AIEEE -2011. The NIT -Kurukshetra was made the nodal centre for reporting of candidates for admissions. It is stated that the process of admissions had been completed after the 7th round of counseling to fill up remaining vacant seats. This was conducted from 11.08.2011 to 13.08.2011. Then the admitted students were required to report to the institute concerned by 20.08.2011. The All India rank of the petitioner is 482147 in AIEEE -2011. It is further pleaded that the petitioner's ranking was lower than the ranking of the last admitted candidate even in the Physically Handicapped Category (General) for the first six rounds of counseling. When the 7th counseling took place all the seats for physically handicapped general category were filled up and there was no vacant seat left and, therefore, the petitioner could not have filled up any choice much less the NIT Kurukshetra. It is admitted in the written statement of the 3rd respondent that the petitioner could have reported to NIT, Kurukshetra for seeking admission under PH(G) Category to compete against all vacant seats in any other NITs established across the country. The petitioner, however, remained unsuccessful in spot counseling (7th round) as well. The first semester examination was over in November 2011.

(3.) The relevant provisions of the Rules are incorporated therein. The international treatises, covenants and conventions although may not be a part of our municipal law, the same can be referred to and followed by the courts having regard to the fact that India is a party to the said treatises. A right to a speedy trial is not a new right. It is embedded in our Constitution in terms of Articles 14 and 21 thereof. The international treaties recognize the same. It is now trite that any violation of human rights would be looked down upon. Some provisions of the international law although may not be a part of our municipal law but the courts are not hesitant in referring thereto so as to find new rights in the context of the Constitution. Constitution of India and other ongoing statutes have been read consistently with the rules of international law. Constitution is a source of, and not an exercise of legislative power. The principles of International Law whenever applicable operate as a statutory implication but the Legislature in the instant case held itself bound thereby and, thus, did not legislate in disregard of the constitutional provisions or the international law as also in the context of Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The law has to be understood, therefore, in accordance with the international law. Part III of our Constitution protects substantive as well as procedural rights. Implications which arise therefrom must effectively be protected by the judiciary. A contextual meaning of the statute is required to be assigned having regard to the Constitutional as well as International Law operating in the field. (See Liverpool and London S.P. And 1. Association Ltd. vs. M.V. Sea Success I and Another : (2004) 9 SCC 512).