The judgment emphasizes the need for a proactive and empathetic approach in considering the rights and entitlements of persons with disabilities, highlighting the statutory discretion vested in the appropriate authority to provide scholarships to students with benchmark disabilities.

C. Hari Shankar, J.

1. The precise grievance of the petitioner is that the Department of Science & Technology, Government of India (Respondent No. 1 herein) has, in its Advertisement inviting applications from candidates for its INSPIRE Faculty Award, January-2018 (Session-I) ("Innovation in Science Pursuit for Inspired Research") programme, not provided for age relaxation for candidates suffering from benchmark disabilities, of which the petitioner claims to be one. This, the petitioner asserts, violates Section 32(2) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "the RPWD Act"). Needless to say, the petitioner being overage, has been unable to apply for the said programme.

2. The petitioner was 34 years of age, as on the date of filing the writ petition.

3. The INSPIRE programme was launched, by Respondent No.1, in 2008, and aims at attracting talent for the study of science and careers involving research. Under the said programme, contractual research awards are to be granted, to "young achievers", so that they can emerge as "future leaders in the long term". A Ph.D, in science, mathematics, engineering, pharmacy, medicine, or agriculture related subjects, is necessary, to enable one to apply for the award. The stipulation regarding age, as contained in the conditions governing "Eligibility", as set out in the 14th Advertisement for the programme (hereinafter referred to as "the Advertisement"), as published by Respondent No. 1 (in response whereto the petitioner desires to apply) reads thus:

a. "The upper age limit as on 1st Jan 2018 should be 32 years for considering support for a period of 5 years. However, for SC and ST candidates, upper age limit will be 35 years."

4. Selected candidates are entitled, as per the Advertisement, to receive a consolidated amount equivalent to the scale of Assistant Professor of an IIT as fellowship amount. In addition, she/he would receive a Research Grant of Rs. 7 lakhs per year for 5 years. The Advertisement further stipulates that, in case the candidate (referred to as "the INSPIRE Faculty") finds a permanent position during the tenure of his "awardship", the fellowship amount would stand discontinued, but permits her/him to continue with the INSPIRE Faculty Scheme, availing the Research Grant, for the remaining period, to enable her/him to carry out research at the new position.

5. The last date for applying, pursuant to the Advertisement, was 28th February, 2018.

6. It goes without saying that the INSPIRE Scheme is eminently laudable, and does yeoman service to the cause of young researchers, and in fostering scientific and analytical talent.

7. The petitioner suffers from cerebral palsy. He has been issued a Disability Certificate, dated 20th May, 2016, which certifies him as suffering from permanent disability, of the said category. The writ petition highlights the fact that the petitioner is an achiever, who, after completing his studies from the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), where he studied from 8th August, 2008 to 5th May, 2015, was awarded a Ph.D on 21st October, 2015. He claims to have taught underprivileged children, aspiring for the Bachelor of Arts programme at JNU, free of cost, between 14th November, 2017 and 19th December, 2017.

8. The writ petition sets out the various achievements of the petitioner, and also annexes his curriculum vitae, a perusal whereof discloses that the petitioner is, undoubtedly, prodigal. In fact, Ms. Sadiya Rohma Khan, arguing passionately for the petitioner's cause, would submit, he is also known as "the Indian Stephen Hawking".

9. Be that as it may, this Court, while adjudicating on the dispute before it, cannot allow its decision to be permeated by the warmth of Ms. Sadiya Rohma Khan's arguments, but has to keep in mind, at all times, the "cold logic of the law".

10. The case of the petitioner, as vocalised by Ms. Sadiya Rohma Khan, is that, in not providing age relaxation for candidates with disabiliti