Educational institutions must comply with provisions for differently-abled students, including necessary accommodations. Failure to follow procedural guidelines leads to dismissal of claims for further grace marks.

JUDGMENT

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

The appeal is preferred by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 3863 of 2020 challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 23.06.2020, whereby the writ petition was disposed of recording that the National University of Advanced Legal Studies—first respondent has taken appropriate action and conducted the further examinations in tune with the provisions contained under the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission by issuing question papers with objective type questions and granting additional time of one hour to the appellant, who is having hearing impairment.

2. The University has also assured before court that they will extend all the benefits for which appellant is entitled, in accordance with Ext.P3 guidelines as well as the guidelines issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, (Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities), dated 29th August, 2018 as well as the guidelines issued by the UGC while conducting the forthcoming examinations and supplementary examinations. It was also recorded that there is no provision available in the Rule or Regulations, which insist that the grace marks also should be given to the persons with disabilities.

3. Insofar as the claim raised by the appellant with respect to the shortage of 5-10 marks in the examinations written by her, the appellant was given opportunity to approach the University with a representation furnishing all the details, and in turn the University was directed to place the representation before the competent body and to take a decision within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, taking note of the fact that the appellant was denied the benefits which were legitimately due to her. The appellant has also produced additional documents in the writ appeal regarding the submission of project etc., apparently consequent to the action initiated by the University on the representation submitted by the appellant. The appellant has also produced guidelines issued by the University in lieu of the supplementary examinations and in accordance with the request made by her.

4. In fact, the paramount contention advanced in the writ petition was that Sections 17 (i) and 17(k) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 ('Act, 2016' for short) make it imperative to every educational institution and authorities to meet the needs of differently abled students by providing extra time and also to provide such other measures as required to meet the needs of the disabled students. It was also submitted that the Act, 2016 is a beneficial legislation enacted with the above provisions to provide all necessary measures for the welfare and benefit of the disabled persons with the hopeful intention of bringing them to the mainstream and ensuring full participation in the activities of the nation. It was also submitted that the Government of India, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, has issued Ext. P2 office memorandum laying down the guidelines for conducting written examinations for persons with benchmark disabilities. It is evident that clause XVI of Ext. P2 memorandum specifies that alternative objective questions in lieu of descriptive questions should be provided for Hearing-Impaired persons, in addition to the existing policy of giving alternative questions in lieu of questions requiring visual inputs for persons with visual impairment. It is also pointed out that the UGC ie., the 3rd respondent, as per Ext. P3, forwarded Ext. P2 office memorandum for strict compliance to all the Universities. Therefore, by virtue of Exts. P2 and P3, the