The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 39 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, and its applicability to reservation for physically handicapped persons in educational institutions.

( 1 ) PETITIONER is allegedly having congenital dislocation, of the left hip with 2 of shortening and instability at the hip joint. This allegedly amounts to 40% of permanent orthopaedic handicap in relation to left lower limb. Petitioner passed her senior school certificate examination in 1999. Petitioner claims that in accordance with the provisions of "the Persons with Disabilities (Equal opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, disabled persons are entitled to 3% reservation for admission in all educational institutions receiving aid from the Government. On 2/12/1999 the petitioner made a representation to the Chief Minister of Delhi for considering her in the aforesaid 3% reservation class for admission to M. B. B. S. and B. D. S. course. Petitioner is alleged to have been assured of admission with 3% reservation. Petitioner appeared in the entrance test for admission in the M. B. B. S. and B. D. S. course and despite being assured by the Deputy-Commissioner (Disabilities) for admission in the course on the basis of 3% reservation for the disabled persons and despite repeated reminders having been issued by the Deputy-Commissioner (Disabilities) to the University, admission was not given to the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, filed petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India far a direction to the respondents to allocate a seat for the M. B. B. S. . course to the petitioner within 3% quota for physically handicapped persons in the Medical Entrance Test 2000 and for a direction to the respondents to implement the directions of the Supreme Court given in Indira Sahni s case reported as 1992 Suppl (3) Supreme Court. Cases 210,

( 2 ) COUNTER affidavit has been filed by the respondent and the stand taken is that there is no reservation or quota for physically handicapped persons in the M,e. B. S. course and the provisions of the Act do not apply to reservation of seats for the disabled persons in the professional courses being conducted by the University of Delhi. It was also stated that 15% seats were reserved for S/cs; 7 % seats were reserved for STs; 5% seats were reserved for children widows of armed personnels killed/disabled; 9% seats were reserved for Government of India nominees and 15% quota was to be filled by the Director General of Health Services, It is, therefore, submitted that there is already 51% reservation for different categories and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court , reservation for all categories shall in no case exceed 50%. The contention, therefore, was that perhaps reduction in certain categories may have to be made before reservation was made for physically handicapped candidates as a special category for reservation, While reservation for SCs and STs was statutory reservations, 15% quota made available to be filled up by the Director General of Health Services was under the directions of the Supreme Court of India. Seats earmarked for Government of India nominees was pursuant to the policy of the Central Government and similarly reservation in favour of the children and widows of armed personnels killed/disabled was in terms of the policy of the Government of India. It was submitted that the petitioner having not impleaded the Union of India as a party to the Petition could not seek remedy in the present Petition. It is also the case of the respondent that M. B. B. S. course was meant for students who eventually become doctors to serve the general public and it was of utmost importance that a doctor is physically fit in every respect to be of service to the patient. It was submitted that it was for the Government of India to lay down guidelines as to what kind of physical handicaps will no,,t operate as a bar and what kind of physical handicaps will operate as a bar. It is, therefore, submitted that since Medical Council of India has also not been made a party to the Petition, the Petition was not maintainable.

( 3 ) RELIANCE i