The central legal point established in the judgment is the correct implementation of reservation for PWD category candidates in accordance with the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995.

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

CM Nos.14021/2017 (for condonation of delay)

1. This application has been filed by the appellants seeking condonation of 78 days delay in filing the present appeal. For the reasons stated, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is, hereby, condoned.

This application is disposed of.

LPA No.269/2017 & CM No.14019/2017

2. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellants to assail the judgment dated 15th December, 2016 rendered by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.10166/2016. The learned Single Judge has disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the appellants herein to reserve one extra seat for OBC candidates belonging to the PWD (Persons with Disabilities) category over and above the vacancies to be sanctioned in the next academic year i.e. 2017-2018, with a further direction to grant admission to one of the petitioners who have been found to be high in merit in the examination held for admission in the previous academic year i.e. 2016-2017.

3. The respondents have been put to notice and they have also appeared through counsel. However, when the case is called out for hearing today, none has appeared on behalf of the respondents.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and proceed to judgment.

5. The respondents herein had preferred the aforesaid writ petition. They are both physically challenged and were aggrieved by the fact that they were not called for counselling for admission to MD/MS Unani Medicines Course for the academic years 2016-19.

6. The grievance of the respondents arose in the following background. The appellants issued a brochure on 20th July, 2016 disclosing that 66 seats were advertised in respect of the aforesaid course. We may at this stage itself observe that though the brochure speaks about 66 seats, as a matter of fact, 62 seats were sanctioned by the Department of AYUSH, Government of India for the said course. The learned Single Judge has proceeded on the basis of sanction and existence of 62 seats, and we also proceed on the same basis. As per Clause VII (B) of the brochure, three per cent seats were compartmentally reserved, on horizontal basis, for candidates belonging to PWD category, from within all the categories viz. General, SC, ST & OBC. The entrance examination was held and the results were announced. However, the said result was withdrawn by the appellants. The final result was, thereafter, published on 17th October, 2016. The list of selected candidates did not include any candidate who belonged to the PWD category. The respondents represented to the Chief Commissioner of Persons with Disabilities and to the Vice-Chancellor of the Delhi University. The Chief Commissioner of Persons with Disabilities passed an order advising the appellants to provide their comments within twenty days and also to confirm whether two seats for persons with disabilities had been kept in abeyance. Since the respondents were still aggrieved, they preferred the writ.

7. The appellants filed a short counter affidavit before the learned Single Judge disclosing that 62 seats were sanctioned by the Department of Ayush, Government of India for the said course. As per the norms, 50% i.e. 31 seats were meant from Delhi University quota, and the remaining 50% i.e. 31 seats were meant for All India quota. The respondents were concerned with admission under the 50% All India quota. According to the appellants, in the All India Quota, out of 31 seats, 8 seats were reserved for OBC category (for complying with reservation of 27%). The appellants stated that in the current academic session (i.e. 2016) 3% seats in any of the category i.e. General, SC, ST & OBC could not be carved out compartmentally, and on horizontal basis for the PWD category.

8. The learned Single Judge rejected the submission of the appellants, by holding that 3% of 31 seats comes to 0.93 seats which, upon rounding off, translates to one seat. The learned Single Judge, therefore, held th