* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of decision: 17.12.2009

+

WP (C) No.16258 of 2006

SAMBHAVANA

…PETITIONER

Ms. Ritu Kumar, Advocate.

DELHI UNIVERSITY & ORS.

…RESPONDENTS

Ms. Maninder Acharya, Advocate

for Delhi University.

Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Adv. for R-2.

Ms. Beenashaw Soni, Advocate

for R-3, 22 & 56.

Dr. Aurobindo Ghose, Advocate

for R-4, 12 & 79.

Mr. Pawan Kumar Agarwal, Adv.

for R-8, 24, 26, 27, 30, 34, 40, 52,

57, 58 & 83.

Ms. Manisha Singh, Adv. for R-13.

Ms. Parul Sharma, Advocate

for R-14 & 50.

Mr. A.P.S. Ahluwalia, Adv. for R-

19, 25, 43, 44, 61, 63, 64, 75 & 76.

Mr. M.K. Singh, Adv. for R-23&81.

Mr. N. Chaudhary & Ms. Sushma,

Advocates for R-28 & 82.

Mr. Rajesh & Mr. Rohit Singh,

Advocates for R-29.

Mr. R.P. Sharma, Adv. for R-31.

Mr. Rajinder Dhawan & Ms. Shafali

Dhawan, Advs. for R-33, 38, 65, 66,

73 & 77.

Mr. Navin Chawla & Mr. Sharath

Sampath, Advs. for R-39.

Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. for R-41.

Mr. Prashant M., Advocate for R-53.

Mr. Mamta Chandra, Adv. for R-55.

Mr. Neeraj Chaudhary, Advocate

for R-59 & 60.

Mr. Anurag Mathur, Advocate

for R-15, 83 & 84.

Mr. Samar Bansal, Adv. for R-85.

2009:DHC:5502-DB

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE

1.

Whether the Reporters of local papers

may be allowed to see the judgment?

No

2.

To be referred to Reporter or not?

No

3.

Whether the judgment should be

reported in the Digest?

No

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. (Oral)

1.

The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has

been filed seeking directions against the respondent/Delhi

University and its affiliate colleges to fill up the backlog of

vacancies reserved for persons with disability within the meaning

of „The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection

of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995‟ (hereinafter referred to

as the said Act). It was brought to the notice of the Court that

despite directions, affiliate colleges were not filling up the

vacancies and violating the directions by recruiting and filling up

the posts with other candidates.

2.

Directions were passed from time to time including putting a

restraint order on the affiliate colleges to fill up the vacancies from

the general candidates till such time as it is ensured that the

vacancies reserved under the said Act are filled up. A final

solution, however, was not emerging as repeatedly advertisements

were issued by affiliate colleges which were found to be defective

and recruitment under those advertisements were stayed. The

2009:DHC:5502-DB

result was that no recruitment was taking place which naturally

affects the functioning of affiliate colleges.

3.

We were of the considered view that it is necessary that University

and its affiliate colleges put their house in order and devise a

system for smooth functioning of the process of recruitment and

filling up of the backlog of vacancies.

4.

We are happy to note that an endeavour has been made by the

University to sit down with the representatives of the affiliate

colleges as also other stakeholders including NGOs to work-out

the procedure and guidelines for such recruitment. These agreed

procedure/guidelines have been placed on record. We have heard

learned counsels for the parties today to fine-tune the procedure.

The modified procedure agreed to by all the parties is being set out

hereinafter:

“Procedure:-

(1)

The University proposes to have a two member Committee

consisting of Deputy Registrar (Colleges) and Deputy

Registrar (Legal) who would be responsible for scrutinizing

all the advertisements which colleges or any department of

the University, propose to publish for filling the posts under

3% quota. The colleges will submit the proposed

advertisement along with the 100 point reservation roster

(prescribed by the Government of India) being maintained

by them to this