The first petitioner completed post graduation in Hindi and the second petitioner, post graduation in History. Both of them are visually handicapped. The first petitioner completed M.Phil course in the University of Hyderabad in the year 1997 and thereafter was admitted as a Research Scholar. The second petitioner joined M.Phil course in the History in the year 1999. Both of them applied to the second respondent and the University Grants Commission -the first respondent for grant of Junior Research Fellowship (for short "JRF"), which results in extension of financial aid to complete the Ph.D and M. Phil as the case may be. The second respondent forwarded applications to the first respondent.

2. Through their letter dated 25.4.1997, the first respondent informed the second respondent that no candidate would be eligible for award of Junior Research Fellowship unless he has cleared the National Evaluation Test (for short "NET") conducted by it. Through another communication, dated 6.12.1999, the first respondent informed the second respondent that there is no provision to extend financial benefit to the petitioners since they have not cleared the NET. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the rejection of their claim by the respondents. It is stated that the first respondent itself exempted the visually handicapped persons from such requirement through their memo, issued in May, 1987. They also state that as recently as in the year 1992 the second respondent extended the benefit of J.R.F to one Mr.G.Anil Kumar, a visually handicapped candidate. Reference is made to the letter of May, 1987 issued by the first respondent.

3. The first respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit. It is stated that though exemption was granted from appearing in NET in favour of visually handicapped candidates for grant of J.R.F., the same was withdrawn in the year 1988 through proceedings dated 14/15.7.1988. It is also pleaded that the petitioners cannot claim the benefit of JRF or exemption from appearing N.E.T as a matter of right. Relevant documents are also enclosed.

4. Sri K.Balagopal, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the first respondent recognized the necessity of providing benefits to the physically handicapped, particularly, visually handicapped candidates and exempted them from appearing the NET, in the context of extending J.R.F. He contends that exemption was not withdrawn at any point of time and on the other hand, an additional obligation was created on the first respondent by the Parliament by enacting "The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995" (for short 'the Act'). Learned counsel further submits that Clause (d) of Section 30 of the Act mandates that the concerned agency shall grant scholarships to students with disabilities and despite the same, the respondents have not extended the benefit. He further submits that the letter dated 14/15.7.1988 apart from not taking away the benefit, in fact, reiterates exemption in favour of the visually handicapped candidates.

5. Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the first respondent submits that no citizen can claim exemption from an academic requirement as a matter of right. He contends that though the visually handicapped candidates were granted exemption in the year 1987, the same was withdrawn in the next year after ascertaining the views of financial agencies. Learned counsel submits that the first respondent has provided for several facilities and benefits especially and exclusively for visually handicapped candidates as is evident from the letter dated 25.4.1997.

6. The Union and the State Governments have been extending benefits and reliefs of various categories, in favour of physically handicapped candidates, particularly visually handicapped to enable them to study various courses. Braille script is introduced and necessary financial as well as physical assistance is extended to them. By overcomi