f'" '•*(•^ /,^ (•" JfJ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) 4-?(^ PETITIONER ^^ ^ ^llp" W.P. No..,,.....l....'..l.7.J....../2005 Jitendra Nath Tiwari Aged about 21 Years S/0 Shri Shrirampratap Tiwari R/0 Masjid Road, Near Gorkha Tailor, Kota, Raipur District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^'^ ^ /' 3. ^•^ ^rT'7C?-''^ J-^A^' 'w^^.' 11 \ ^^ "•")>1 ^^-fy State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary Department of Health, Medical Education 8& Family Welfare D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Director Medical Education D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Dean Medical College, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Dean Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Sciences (CIMS) Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya through the Vice Chancellor Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) j jg ^ PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITS TO MANDAMUS AND CERTIORARI AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRITS AND DIRECTIONS:- XI-HC-78 -x9 *ii*ic^T^*n^ ^ucf '^iiqic>«,u>Ti11<-i<j<<, Rirt!<<-fy<< ..y..P.:.i7.(.^., 3rr^5T q^q? (ticrf3<ni) 3T?^$T<PTRyticb ^ff3TI^$Ta?^ fcl^N^ ^PTT^'^f^ 3TT^$T 28-9-2005 Mr. Rahul Jha <& Mr. Mr. &andeep Dubey, ^ov| No.l to 3. Mr. Moinindra Shrivastavoil. Advocate for respondents No.4 Mr. A.K. Bhoite, Associ^ College, Raipur, and Officer-in"^ Court. So far no return has respondents. Notices were issi| admission in Medicai Colle9es i| 2005/therefore, counsel for th< The aise of the petitione^ conducted by the respondent 3[ and the petitioner was pbced jn^ ciass candidates. The candidal class namely, Samitraj Prasad outside the State. The Sin9h (Surudatt-a, S/o Manjee-) Jawaharlal Nehru Medical Col Jiten|jra Pali, Advocates for the petitioner. 1-. Advocate for the State/respondents Senior Advocate with AAr. Amrito Das, ft5. i<|ite Professor (Pharmacology)/ AAedical -^harge of the case is also present in the candidate cpi<!?o4^rl 1RTR^'ff fe^T ^^"ci<< ^3?f^H^?^^T Ibeen filed on behalf of the State/ i|ied on 26-9-2005. As the tost date of fdst approaching i.e. 30 September, parties were heard finally- is that he appeared in Pre Medical Test Jtate for the academic session 2005-06 the merit list at SI.No.4 in handicopped |"e placed at SI-No-1 in tiie hGindicapped |ias been admitted in a medical cotle9e placed at SI.No.2 namely, Manpreet Singh has already been admitted in llege, Raipur, where the petitioner is 50 XI-HC-78 4ii*ic$T^m^ ^wf <^jiqirt<4, u>TTl^'ll<o, Rlrtl<<-iy'< ..^.:.TT.:.fc7L<tT/. STT^^T q^q? (^cli^clc^) 3TT^$T<PTR-lJ<h asnsn^sTawFp seeking admission. Jhe candida Hemu Tandon has been admi AAedical Scienc^s, Bilaspur petitioner, being placed at SIJ disabled/handicapped class quol I have heard learned coui Mr. Jha, learned counse one seat of handicapped/disabl Manpreet Singh Gurudatta, 5/<^ has been given admission who candidate namely Miss Sangc handicapped/disabled quota as concerned, that is still lyingj entitJed for the ^3iid admissionj three seats of Central Poo 1 qi| Central ^ovemment has not disabled/hGndicapped against t| In view of the spirit Opportunities, Protection of (hereinafter referred to as 'th|< <^l<(Io<nv1 ^MrtY^'fe^^^-dl^ ^3Tf^?3I^?T ^e who was placed at SI-No.3 nameiy, Miss ifted in the Chhattisgarh Institute of agojinst the handicapped class quota. The .h^o.4, is entitled for admission against the ra. [isel for the parties. for the petitioner argued that against id quota from the unreserved category, 1 Manjeet Singh, a handicapped candidate, ^/as at SI.No.2 in the merit list, and one ?ta has been given admission against 15T candidate. So fdr as the third seat is vacant. ^Therefore, the petitioner is Leamed counsel further submitted that liota have been reverted and so far the lominated any candidate of 5C or OBC \ose three seats. b^hind the Persons with Disabilities (Equal lights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 't^e Act. 1995'), and particularly Section 39 XI-HC-78 ;-> 1?1 ^;Er;;:ZTR[7^T, t9-nl'(-i<i<»,Roi1<-f^ *tm^i^1^l^ .40:.^. ;:..\...'. 3TI^^T<f5TR^icb ?TSn3TT^$T^1FTW 3TI^?Tq^^ (^crfg6R[) ^PTT^ ;?Tf^?f 3TT^$T Jaw4harlal Co11^9^ o|r of the Act, 1995, it js the reserve not less thcxn 3% seatsj Total seats of the 100, out of which 82 seats ane| of Central Pool have been Jawaharlai Nehru Medical Even otherwise, total seats of| if 15% seats are to be filledl cannot be set apqrt for the Three per cent re^rvation fo^r of the total seats of the the Act, 1995. Therefore, three students from the when the candidate of 5C or seat must have been aJlotted On the other hand, Mr.| for 1+ie State/respondents available to the State therefore, the third candidat^ that the petitioner comes Singh ^urudatta has already <pi^Io<nvi ^s^oT^'f^^f^Fjt^-cj^ ^sri^HSIT^ST ^luty of every (^overnment institution to for the disabled/handicapped candidates. Nehru Medical College, Raipur, are to be filled by the State and three seQts ^eyerted back thereby, the respondent ^ Raipur, is required to fiil up 85 seats. |the Medical College, Raipur are 100. Even up by the A II India Quota, those seats |)urpose of Section 39 of the Act, 1995. disabled candidates has to be made 3% ^ looking to the spirit of Section 39 of fhe respondents ought to have admitted 3{3ibled/handicapped quota and particularly (pBC is not availabie in that case, the third t]p the petitioner. Dubey, learned ^ovt. Advocate appearing ).l to 3 argued that only 82 seats are and 3% of 82 comes to 2 seats, cannot be admitted. He further argued general category and one Mr. Manpreet ]peen given admission against the disabled coll^g^ Nlo (Soverhment fro|m II! l! 2 \3-cc|^<||<<lrt<1, tPTH1<-l'll<o, R|ril'<-1^ TFi^ra?mq»•••—-'••••'-••••/•y--.- ^200^ STT^^T traq? (i|ciij6i<g) 3TT^^T<PTR^i<b Wff3TT^$Trt)^i<b ?mTW[ ^R'd 3TT^$T -^ quota in general aategory, the^efore the petitioner is not entitled for admission. Havin9 heard learned copnsel record. Section 39 of the A[ disabled persons envisuiges tha1| "All educational persons with educational insti institutions recei shall reserve notl for persons with Ihstjtutions to reserv®seats for disabilitJes.--AIJ ^ovemment hitions and other educational i^ing aid from the Sovemment, jess than three per cent seats lisabilities." ad<fot The object behind made at the meeting to laun| Disabled Persons 1993-2002 c^ It has been made clear to proclamation on the Full Disabilities in the Asian and said proctamation the Act, Reading of Section 39 iess than 3% seats are to institution-s for the persons w been mentioned that the re^ cate9ory of ccxndidates. 19915 <pi<<[w<TI<i <ii+ioT^ffe^|' ^Ri^j^ ^arf^raii^CT for the parties, I have per^used the ;t, 1995/ which provides reservation for brin^ing this legislation was the proclamation launbh the Asian and Pacific Decade of 1+ie o|t Beijing from 1st to 15th becember, 1992. the resolution of the said meeting, the Parlfcipation and Equality of the People with F|acific Region, In order to implement the has been enacted. >f the Act, 1995, makes it ctear that not be reserved in ^ovemment educationai jth disabilities. In -riiis provision, it has not re^ervation has to be made looking to the Hc|weyer, in order to fuifill and meet the SP/FS/2005-20,000 i *1P1<^T9»mq» u3 \3w|'rqiqic)«,u>-al1<-l<l<»,RlciN4^ _;_ M<^< / ^Ft200^ 3TI^9T q^l? (^jcrfgel^) OT^^TcCTR^Jch ^ffan^^T^^i^b \--t- ?^TT^R^rfg^T 3TT^^T ci>j<4[o<Tlyt^ti+ioTfff^St \Vj\^y< ^3rf^T3T|^?T requirement of Section 39 of ^he Act, 1995, the State ^overnment of Chhatt-isgarh while prescribin^ the procedure for admission to the Jawaharlai Nehru AAedical Colle^e, Raipur, and CIAAS, Bibspur, a specific provision was made that looking will be in horizontal for each cal reserved for unreserved catego In the brochure, only one^ are to be filled through comj^ reservation for Sainik cl disabled/handicapped class. As |to the number of seats this reservation egory and accordingly, one seat each was [y and 5T; seat has been shown to be reserved for unreserved category ond other ^wo seats have not been reserved for any other category. Whereas,the 4r"ended provision of sub-rule (5)0f Rule 4 of the Admission Rules envisc^es that in all categories of seats, which letitive examination, there shall be 3% ^ss, freedom fighter class, and [82 seats were avaiiable for admission by the State ^overnment and rem^ining 3 seats were reserved for Central Pool quota, GBid so far, -tiie Ce^trai ©overnmenthas not nominated any person against those seats/ the the Jawaharlal Nehru Medical provisions of Section 39 of the Singh ^urudatta has already "efore, total 85 seats are to be filled by College, Raipur, as such, in view of the Act, 1995, th& respondents are required to fil! up at least 3 seats frotji disabled class couididates. As per the information given, one candidat4 from unreserved category i.e, Manpreet ^een admitted and one cflindidate Kum. SP/FS/2005-20,000 •S.SSl S <TF1c5T^m^ \3wi '-qi«io«,yTTI<<^i<&, RirtK-iy^ ......'A?:.P.-..fc7.L^/ ^2006^ 3TT^^T<prR^ich ?TW3n^$T^^icb 3TT^$T q^P (<3?fg6H5) ^RTT^^rf^TCT^^T ~<6 Soingeeta has been admitted lying vacant, as no candidate fr^r no reservation for SC and di^al been made. Admitt-edly, the class, therefore, being a thir< class ond looking to the spiri petitioner is entitled for admh In the resutt/the writ p^ directed to consider the casel M.B.B-S. course in Raipur handicapped quota. Before parting with thi^ the arguments were conclud€|d respondents or the ^overnm^nt seats which have been revert^c up. During dictation of this seats are filled up. But the 4dnr 30th September, 2005, as per made after filing of this w{ respondents are subject to th| if any admission is made, it 'om 5T category/ cxnd the third %at is ?m SC & OBC category is available. Even ^abled/handicapped class candidates has ^etitioner is from disabled/handiccpped candidate of the diaibled/handicapped ift- of Section 39 of the Act, 1995, the sion, ^tition is allowed and the respondents are of the petitioner for admission to the |Aedicat College against the disabled/ (pi<4[o<nyi <ii^oV^"fe^£l^RI^K ^3T^T^^T order, I woutd like to observe that t'tl ^d the Officer-in-charge of the State/ Advocate has not stated that three ld from the Central Pool have been filled ?rder, it was informed that these three ^dmission in Medical Colleges are open till |t'he Apex Court order, and the admissions tit petition with the knowledge of the decision of this Court. Therefore, even not affect the case of the petitioner sllall SP/FS/2005-20,000 1 ^^^^^:'9*w ^5 XI-HC-78 vjxwi ^i^io«,tp-ul'<i<i<?, Rioi^^ s> \ ^ W+lc^l^^T^ 3TT^?T q^^ (I3?f3^) ^200^ ^n^^T^Rnicn ^3i^$Ta?qra? ^en^v hN^- \ <v \..: << ^ ^ON ^^TT^R^rf^T 3TT^^T -7-1 and the respondents are directec| for admission against the third se^xt In view of this order, M.(^[. stand disposed of. Parties are entitled for cerftified copy of this order. ^ <PI^Ic5<Tlv1 H!<4c^f^ai^^t ^Rl^-CIS ^3Tf^:?3H^$T to consider the case of the petitioner of disabled quota. .)P.No.3819/2005 & I.A.No.8427/2005 <^1 ^? ^ ^/.t ^' Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge