The court ruled that a temporary disability certificate suffices for admission under PWD category for candidates under 18, as permanent certificates are not mandated by law until the age of 18.

JUDGMENT :

Abdul Moin, J.

1. Rejoinder-affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. Heard Shri Vikas Singh, learned counsel who has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner, which is taken on record, Shri Rajat Gangwar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 and Shri Manik Sinha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Shishir Yadav, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

3. Under challenge is the email dated 22.1.2024, a copy of which is annexure 14 to the petition, as well as the email dated 5.2.2024, a copy of which is annexure 18 to the petition sent by the respondent No. 1 whereby it has been indicated that as the petitioner has failed to produce Person With Disability (PWD) Certificate of permanent disability as per University norms, the National Law University, in this case the respondent No. 2, has rejected the claim of the petitioner for admission in the seat under PWD category.

4. A further prayer is for quashing the decision taken by the respondent No. 2 in respect of rejecting the petitioner's disability certificate dated 20.12.2023, quashing the 3rd provisional list of CLAT 2024 published by respondent No. 1 as contained as annexure 13 to the petition and for reinstating the admission of the petitioner at the respondent No. 2 University as per the 2nd provisional list and to further conduct the rounds of admission counselling process of CLAT 2024 only after redetermining and re-publishing the 3rd provisional list issued for CLAT 2024 and to grant admission to the petitioner on the basis of his All India Rank under PWD category in CLAT 2024.

5. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts of the case as set forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the petitioner, as a PWD candidate, had appeared in CLAT 2024 conducted by the respondent No. 1. The petitioner claims to have secured admission in the respondent No. 2 Institution in the second round of counselling with the respondent No. 2 University for the purpose of admission in the law course under CLAT 2024. The petitioner claims that he is having the disability certificate issued by the Department of Psychiatry And National Drug Dependence Treatment Centre (NDDTC), AIIMS, South Delhi which has diagnosed the case of the petitioner as “Specific Learning Disability in Writing Only” and his disability has been indicated as greater than 40%. The age of the petitioner in the certificate has been indicated as 17 years, his date of birth being 13.9.2006 and the said certificate is valid up to 20.12.2026 i.e. for a period of 3 years from the date of the said certificate having been issued i.e. on 20.12.2023.

6. Despite the petitioner having secured the admission in the second round of counselling in the respondent No. 2 University, with which the present controversy is concerned, as per the aforesaid e-mail sent by the respondent No. 1, the petitioner has been informed that the respondent No. 2 has rejected the admission of the petitioner as he has failed to produce the PWD certificate of permanent disability as per the University norms.

7. Attention of the Court has been invited towards the definitions as given under Sections 2(r), 2(zc) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2016”) alongwith Sections 16 and 17 of the Act, 2016 and Clause 2 of the Schedule annexed with the Act, 2016.

8. The contention is that Section 2(r) of the Act, 2016 defines “person with benchmark disability” as a person with not less than forty percent of a specified disability; Section 2(zc) defines “specified disability” as the disabilities as specified in the Schedule.

9. Clause 2 of the Schedule of the Act, 2016 indicates the intellectual disability as a condition characterised by significant limitation both in intellectual functioning and adaptive behaviour including (a) “specific learning disabilities” meaning heterogenous group of conditions wherein there is a deficit in processing language, spoken or written, that may manifest it