1 wp616.11 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRTT PETITION NO. 616 OF 2011 Vishal Agrawal. .. Petitioner vs Directorate of Technical Education &anr. .. Respondents. Ms. Ankita Singhania with Ms. Kanchan Pamnani, advocate for petitioner. Mr. G. W. Mattos, AGP for respondents. CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C. J. AND GIRISH GODBOLE, J 25 July 2011 P.C. 1. Leave to add Secretary, Social Justice & Special Assistance Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai as Respondent No. 3. Amendment be carried out forthwith. 2. The petitioner is a Graduate of the Bachelor of Commerce with 90% blind/low vision with loco motor impairment as the petitioner is suffering from a degenerative eye condition called Retinitis Pigmentosa. The petitioner applied for appearing in the common entrance test called MH-Management CET, which was to be conducted on 27 February, 2011. The petitioner desired to 2 wp616.11 engage 4th year engineering student as scribe but the permission was declined on the ground that the petitioner’s request was not in consonance with the “guidelines” issued by the Directorate of Technical Education regarding physically challenged candidates for the admission test for the MBA/MMS. The relevant guidelines which were relied upon by the concerned authorities were as under : “* The academic qualification of the scribe should be one grade lower to the stipulated eligibility criteria. * The scribe should possess lesser marks than the candidate and not more than 60% marks in his own academic stream. * Such candidate who uses a scribe shall be eligible for extra time of 20 minutes for every hour of the examination. * Visually Impaired candidates under Blind/low Vision may skip the non-verbal questions and the questions based on Graph and Table. The candidates will be awarded marks for these questions based on the overall average obtained in other questions of the test.” 3. While issuing notice on 25 February, 2011, this Court had passed interim order directing the respondent authority to allow the petitioner to engage a scribe as requested by the petitioner. At the hearing today, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was permitted to engage a scribe as per his choice and that the petitioner has now secured admission to the Jamnalal Bajaj 3 wp616.11 Institute of Management for the MBA course. Learned counsel for the petitioner however, submits that since a large number of students suffering from visual impairment are required to move this Court on the eve of examination, this Court may issue appropriate direction/clarification so as to ensure that the students suffering from such disability are not put to hardship and inconvenience on the eve of the examination. 4. Mr. Mattos, learned AGP has tendered an affidavit dated 22 July 2011 of Dr. Vinod Mahadevrao Mohitkar, Deputy Director of Technical Education stating that the Government in the Higher and Technical Education Department has now issued direction dated 23 May 2011 instructing all authorities and Universities in the State of Maharashtra to comply with the directions contained in circular dated 20 December 2006 issued by the Commissioner for Disabled Welfare, Pune. Reference is made to instruction No. 9 of the said circular dated 20 December 2006, which reads as under : “In case the candidate avails the services of his/her own scribe/Writer, the scribe/writer should be one grade junior in academic Qualification than the candidate, if from the same stream. However, this condition shall not apply if the scribe/writer is from a different stream.” 5. The learned AGP states that the State Government has 4 wp616.11 accepted the interpretation placed by this Court in order dated 29/4/2011 in PIL. He therefore states that instruction No. 9 that writer being one grade lower than the student suffering from disability would mean that the writer should be one year in the lower grade i.e. T.Y.B.Com. Student suffering by disability will have the right to engage a writer who is in S.Y.B. Com. 6. In view of the above clarification, as accepted by the State Government, the petitioner’s grievance against the instruction No. 9 of the circular dated 20 December 2006 would no longer survive. The learned counsel for the petitioner however, submits that the guidelines to the effect that the writer or the scribe should possess lesser mark than the candidate having disability and not over 60% in his own academic stream is also arbitrary and also contrary to the previous instruction dated 14 May 2003 issued by the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Government of India. It is pointed out from the said circular dated 14 May 2003 that the previous restriction that a scribe should have secured 50% or less mark was operating very harshly on the candidates with disabilities and that the concerned examination conducting authorities should relax such a condition. 5 wp616.11 7. The Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities has specifically observed as under in the above circular : “Since the condition of 50% or less marks of the scribe is causing considerable problems and is disadvantageous to the candidates with disabilities using scribe vis – a – vis others, the concerned examination conducting authorities should relax this. Any attempt of cheating can be curved by ensuring proper supervision and vigilance by the invigilators.” 8. In view of the above it is clear that the impugned guidelines at Exh. A to the petition are inconsistent with the above instruction issued by the Office of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities of the Government of India in so far as it requires that a scribe should possess lesser marks than the candidate and not more than 60% marks in his own academic stream. 9. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of by taking on record the circular dated 23 May 2011 of the State Government in the Higher and Technical Education Department and the aforesaid declaration that the condition to the effect that the scribe/ writer should be having less than 60% marks or marks less than the marks of the candidates suffering from disability is inconsistent with the aforesaid instruction dated 14 May 2003 of the Chief Commissioner 6 wp616.11 for Persons with Disabilities in the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Government of India. The State Government, Higher and Technical Education Department shall also issue another circular to that effect before commencement of the examination in the current academic year 2011-2012. Respondent No. 3 is also directed to issue the circular to all other departments of the State Government, all the Universities and the examination conducting authorities in the State. Petition accordingly disposed of. CHIEF JUSTICE GIRISH GODBOLE, J