Cannot direct institutes to lower cut-offs for candidates with learning disability: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that courts do not have the power to direct government institutions to lower their cut-offs so as to admit candidates with an intellectual or learning disability..Reiterating that all government institutions of higher education and other government-funded institutions were obligated to reserve not less than five per cent seats for persons with benchmark disabilities in terms of Section 32 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, the Court clarified,.“…it would be for the University, or the Colleges, to fix cut-offs, for the admission of dyslexics and with persons suffering from intellectual or learning disabilities, at an appropriate or realistic level, so that they are able to secure admission and pursue their studies.”.The judgment was passed by a Single Judge Bench of Justice C Hari Shankar in a petition by one Vaibhav Bajaj, who was suffering from dyslexia and had sought admission in a college which was near his residence..While applying for admission to undergraduate courses conducted by the University of Delhi for the academic year 2018-2019, the petitioner listed Sri Guru Gobind Singh College of Commerce (SGGC) as his first preference and Kirori Mal College (KMC) as his second, given their proximity to his residence. The admission was sought against the quota of vacancies available for disabled candidates in these two colleges..However, the petitioner failed to secure the cut-off marks for admission under the quota of seats reserved for students suffering from disability. Thus, he could not secure admission to either of the said colleges..Consequently, the petitioner had to take admission in a college which was 28 kilometres from his residence..The petitioner alleged that the two colleges were defaulters in the matter of preserving 5% of its seats for persons with disability in terms of Section 32 of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act (RPWD Act). Reliance was also placed on a circular issued by Delhi University dated July 4, 2015, to this effect..It was also argued that candidates suffering from learning disabilities stood on an entirely different pedestal as compared to candidates suffering from other forms of disability, such as locomotor disability or auditory disability..Therefore, equating these two categories of candidates amounted to treating unequals as equals and violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India, it was contended..SGGC argued that after the RPWD Act came into force, the University circular ceased to have any effect and fresh guidelines on the reservation of seats of persons with disabilities were issued. Pursuant to the new guidelines, admission against the disability quota of 5% on a course-wise basis was offered by the college in terms of Section 32, it was claimed..It was further submitted that the process of fixing of cut-offs was very scientific and that the cut-offs were gradually lowered for all categories to accommodate the required number of candidates suffering from disabilities within the meaning of the RPWD Act. Excessive lowering of the cut-off would result in an excess of admissions, it was apprehended..The Court was also informed that SGGC had duly filed all seats against the 5% quota on a course-wise basis..KMC also argued that it had discharged its obligation under the RPWD Act by duly filling all seats under the 5% quota on a course-wise basis..The Court considered the contention with respect to setting different cut-offs for candidates suffering from learning disabilities and remarked that the submission was “undeniably attractive”..However, since the petitioner had not challenged the cut-off published by the two colleges, the Court further remarked,.“Having said that, however, what next? The fact remains that the petitioner did not score the cut-offs fixed for admission to the B. Com course conducted either by the SGGC or by the KMC. In fact, the petitioner’s marks, as scored in his XII Class Examination, were far lower than the cut-off fixed for candidates suffering from disability in either of these Colleges.”.It is not possible for the court to travel the extra mile and to determine the level, or point, at which such cut-off would require to be fixed, it said..It further added that it may have been appropriate for candidates suffering from intellectual disabilities to be admitted at a substantially lower cut-off as compared to candidates suffering from other forms of disability. However, no such mandate was found in the RPWD Act, the Court ruled..The Court also considered the contention that based on medical reports, the petitioner was entitled to be educated in a college proximate to his place of residence. However, it opined that the same did not result in an enforceable right to be admitted to a college near the petitioner’s residence..The Court observed,.“Ubi jus, ibi remedium. The sine qua non, for a mandamus to issue, is a legally enforceable right in the claimant, resulting in a legally enforceable duty on the opposite party. Sans any enforceable legal right, no mandamus can be issued.”.The Court sympathized with the petitioner and stated that integration of dyslexics into the mainstream was the need of the hour. However, it also observed that compassion may never substitute justice..“…writs cannot be issued, by any court governed by the rule of law, solely on the basis of sympathy or compassion. Compassion must always temper, but may never substitute, justice which, in its turn, cannot be administered, by a court, in a manner which would derogate from the law as it exists. .It is true that law should never be applied in a manner which should sacrifice, at its alter, justice; equally true, however, is it that justice should never be dispensed in a manner which would violate the law, which is the vehicle thereof.”.The Court thus held that although the mandate of Section 32 could not be avoided by universities, a court could not hold that the cut-offs for admission of candidates with an intellectual or learning disability were required to be lowered..Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed..The petitioner was represented by Advocate Rajan Mani..SGGC was represented by Senior Advocate APS Ahluwalia and Advocates SS Ahluwalia and Mohit Bangwal..KMC was represented by Advocates Santosh Kumar and Bibin Kurian..DU was represented by Advocate Mohinder JS Rupal..Read the Judgment: