IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15823 of 2008 Between: Gurappagari Prashanth Kumar S/o. Gurappagari Rajulu Rep. by his Father and Natural Guardian Gurappagari Rajulu S/o.Papaiah aged 48 yrs, Occ: Service R/o. Siddipet, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Higher Education, A.P. Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Rajeev Gandhi University of Knowledge, Technologies, IIIT Campus, C/o. APSCHE Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Registrar. 3 The District Collector, Medak District. 4 The District Educational Officer, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Medak District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly a writ of Mandamus declaration the action of the respondents in not providing the reservation under the Provisions of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Right and Full Participation) Act 1995 (Act No.1 of 1996) as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequentially direct the respondents to admit the petitioner into IIIT Course in the 2nd Respondent University under physically handicapped quota for the academic year 2008-2009 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.V.BHASKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION The Court made the following : O R D E R:- This writ petition has been ﬁled assailing the action of the respondents in not reserving the seats for physically handicapped persons for admission into I.I.I.T. course in the respondent- University for the academic year 2008-2009. The 2nd respondent ﬁled a counter aﬃdavit. It is stated in para 18 of the counter aﬃdavit that the Governing Council of the University is committed to consider this grievance, keeping in view the Act and necessary further action in this regard would be taken to meet the demands of the physically challenged persons subject to the requirements of law coupled with the requirements of the course. Paragraph 18 of the counter aﬃdavit reads as hereunder: “18. One of the contentions raised in certain writ petitions is that reservations for physically challenged persons have not been provided by the university in the matter of admissions into the above referred course. It is true that the university has not followed/provided speciﬁc reservations for physically handicapped as required under Act 1 of 1996. However, there are 20 physically handicapped students who have been selected as they come within the parameters prescribed under admission procedure. At any rate, it is necessary to mention here the course adopted by the university is such that it requires the apt visual and hearing requirements and the persons with such disabilities would not be in a position to cope up with the rigors of the course. At any rate the Governing Council of the university is committed to consider this grievance, keeping in view the above referred Act and necessary further action in this regard would be taken to meet the demands of physically challenged persons subject to the requirements of law coupled with the requirements of the course”. In view of the averments of the counter aﬃdavit, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to take necessary steps for providing reservation to the physically handicapped persons as required under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 subject to the required law coupled with the requirement of the course. No order as to costs. _________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J 27th August, 2008 bcj