IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5116 of 2008 1. SHAILENDRA KUMAR, Son of Ram Jeet Singh, 2. Krishna Gopal, Son of Ram Adarey, 3. Arvind Kumar, Son of Ram Ujagar Singh, 4. Shradha Singh, Daughter of Surendra Singh, 5. Sadhna Singh, D/o Vijay Pratap Singh, 6. Pushpa Devi, W/o Ram Adhin Pandey, 7. Punam Rai, W/o Ajay Rai, 8. Anupam Devi, Daughter of Govind Prasad Shukla, 9. Priyanka Chaturvedi, D/o Durga Dutt Choubey All are students of J.M. Institute of Speech & Hearing, Indrapuri, P.O. Keshri Nagar, P.S. Patliputra, Distt- Patna. …. Petitioners. Versus 1. The Union of India, through the Secretary, Social Justice and Empowerment, B-22, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi-110016. 2. The Project Director, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, B-22, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi- 110016. 3. The Sr. Consultant, Madhya Pradesh Bhoj (Open) University, Department of Special Education, I.T.I. (Gas Rahat) Building, Govindpura, Bhopal-462023. 4. The Director, Madhya Pradesh Bhoj (Open) University, Department of Special Education, I.T.I. (Gas Rahat) Building, Govindpura, Bhopal-462023. 5. The Co-ordinator, J.M. Institute of Speech & Hearing, Study Centre, 502 & 503 Indrapuri Road No.5, P.O. Keshri Nagar, Patna- 24. 6. The Secretary, J.M. Institute of Speech & Hearing, Study Centre, 502 & 503 Indrapuri Road No.5, P.O. Keshri Nagar, Patna- 24. ……. Respondents. with CWJC No.1415 of 2010 1. KRISHAN GOPAL@KRISHNA GOPAL S/O RAM ADAREY STUDENT OF J.M.INSTITUTE OF SPEECH &HEARING, INDRAPURI, P.O.KESHRI NAGAR, P.S.PATLIPUTRA, DISTT-PATNA 2. PUSHPA DEVI C/O RAM ADHIN PANDEY STUDENT OF J.M.INSTITUTE OF SPEECH &HEARING, INDRAPURI, P.O.KESHRI NAGAR, P.S.PATLIPUTRA, DISTT-PATNA 3. PUNAM RAI C/O AJAY RAI STUDENT OF J.M.INSTITUTE OF SPEECH &HEARING, INDRAPURI, P.O.KESHRI NAGAR, P.S.PATLIPUTRA, DISTT-PATNA 4. ANUPAM DEVI D/O GOVIND PRASAD SHUKLA STUDENT OF J.M.INSTITUTE OF SPEECH &HEARING, INDRAPURI, P.O.KESHRI NAGAR, P.S.PATLIPUTRA, DISTT-PATNA Versus - 2 - 1. MADHYA PRADESH BHOJ(OPEN) UNIVERSITY THROUGH SENIOR CONSULTANT, DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL EDUCATION I.T.I.(GAS RAHAT) BUILDING , GOVINDPURA, BHOPAL -462023 2. THE SR. CONSULTANT , MADHYA PRADESH BHOJ(OPEN)UNIVERSITY, DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL EDUCATION I.T.I.(GAS RAHAT) BUILDING , GOVINDPURA, BHOPAL -462023 3. THE DIRECTOR , MADHYA PRADESH BHOJ(OPEN)UNIVERSITY ,DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL EDUCATION I.T.I.(GAS RAHAT) BUILDING , GOVINDPURA, BHOPAL -462023 4. THE CO-ORDINATOR , J.M. INSTITUTE OF SPEECH &HEARING, STUDY CENTRE 502&503, INDRAPURI ROAD NO.5,P.O.KESHRI NAGAR,PATNA-24 5. THE SECRETARY ,J.M.INSTITUTE OF SPEECH &HEARING, STUDY CENTRE 502&503, INDRAPURI ROAD NO.5,P.O.KESHRI NAGAR,PATNA-24 6. THE REHABILITATION COUNCIL OF INDIA ,STATUTORY BODY , UNDER THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT ,THROUGH ITS SR.PROGRAMMER OFFICER B-22, QUTUB INSTITUTIONAL AREA, NEW DELHI-110016 with CWJC No.6824 of 2009 1. SHAILENDRA KUMAR, Son of Ram Jeet Singh, 2. Krishna Gopal, Son of Ram Adarey, 3. Arvind Kumar, Son of Ram Ujagar Singh, 4. Shradha Singh, Daughter of Surendra Singh, 5. Sadhna Singh, D/o Vijay Pratap Singh, 6. Pushpa Devi, W/o Ram Adhin Pandey, 7. Punam Rai, W/o Ajay Rai, 8. Anupam Devi, Daughter of Govind Prasad Shukla, 9. Priyanka Chaturvedi, D/o Durga Dutt Choubey All are students of J.M. Institute of Speech & Hearing, Indrapuri, P.O. Keshri Nagar, P.S. Patliputra, Distt- Patna. …. Petitioners. Versus 1. The Union of India, through the Secretary, Social Justice and Empowerment, B-22, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi-110016. 2. The Project Director, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, B-22, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi-110016. 3. The Sr. Consultant, Madhya Pradesh Bhoj (Open) University, Department of Special Education, I.T.I. (Gas Rahat) Building, Govindpura, Bhopal-462023. 4. The Director, Madhya Pradesh Bhoj (Open) University, Department of Special Education, I.T.I. (Gas Rahat) Building, Govindpura, Bhopal-462023. 5. The Co-ordinator, J.M. Institute of Speech & Hearing, Study Centre, 502 & 503 Indrapuri Road No.5, P.O. Keshri Nagar, Patna- 24. - 3 - 6. The Secretary, J.M. Institute of Speech & Hearing, Study Centre, 502 & 503 Indrapuri Road No.5, P.O. Keshri Nagar, Patna- 24. ……. Respondents. For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajendra Pd. Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajeev Kr. Singh, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kr. Singh, Adv. Mr. Nawal Kishore Singh, Adv. For the Respondents: Mr. Raghib Ansari, Sr. Adv., A.S.G. ----------- 5/ 05/08/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Rehabilitation Council of India. In all the three writ applications the petitioners are the students of J.M. Institute of Speech and Hearing (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Institute’). The Institute is a study centre of the Madhya Pradesh Bhojpur (Open) University, Department of Special Education ((hereinafter referred to as the ‘University’.). The University runs programme for grant of qualifications in B.Ed. (Special Education-cum-Distance Education) Programme. It is recognized and regulated by the Rehabilitation Council of India which also maintains a central register of all qualified persons in the field of rehabilitation. The primary aim is to rehabilitate physically handicapped persons. The issue relates to the publication of the results of the petitioner for the session-2007-09. C.W.J.C. No.5116/08 and C.W.J.C. No.6824/09 have been filed by the same set of petitioners who have completed both sessions of the two year course - 4 - for publication of their results of both the years. C.W.J.C. No.1415/10 has been filed for the same relief. In C.W.J.C. No.5116/08 notice was issued to the University and which has been validly served. There is, however, no appearance on their behalf. The study centre at Patna is duly represented by the counsel who has filed a ‘Vakalatnama’, but none is present on its behalf when the matter is taken up. Learned counsel for the Union of India submits that he represents the Rehabilitation Council of India in all the three applications and a counter affidavit has been filed in C.W.J.C. No.6824/09 on 3.8.2010. Due to delayed filing of the same it is not available on record. If the Union of India had been more careful in filing the counter affidavit in due time, it would have been available to the convenience of the Court. This Court therefore requested the counsel for the Union of India to make available his copy of counter affidavit for perusal so as not to hold up the proceedings on that ground as the copies have been served on the counsel for the petitioners. The office shall however place the original counter affidavit on record. The Rehabilitation Council of India is the regulatory body of the University. The study centre of the University has entered appearance. Notice has been duly served on the University in C.W.J.C. No.5116/08. This - 5 - Court therefore holds that the University, a statutory body, is aware of the pendency of the writ application and had a bounden duty to appear and assist the Court. The Court draws an adverse inference against the University. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that 40 seats each have been allocated to the two study centres at Patna. The admission is regulated by the Rehabilitation Council of India which recommends the names. The petitioners were neither directly sponsored for admission by the Rehabilitation Council of India nor were sponsored subsequently when earlier sponsored candidates within the intake capacity did not join. They have appeared at the two annual examinations held for the session-2007-09 of the B.Ed. Course of Special Education and Distance Education but their results are not being published. The counter affidavit of the Rehabilitation Council of India does not deny or dispute these basic facts. The Court has already drawn an adverse inference against the University. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is satisfied that the Rehabilitation Council of India, a nodal body created by the Government of India to regulate and monitor institutions like the university has a bounden duty in the matter towards the present petitioners having sponsored them for such - 6 - admission quite apart from its regulatory, statutory obligations. This Court therefore directs the Rehabilitation Council of India to take all necessary steps in law to ensure that the University takes an appropriate decision for publication of the results of the petitioners within a maximum period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the Rehabilitation Council of India. If the result of the petitioners or any one of them is proposed to be withheld, the reason must be spelt out in detail in a reasoned and speaking order to be passed jointly by the University and the Rehabilitation Council of India so as to facilitate judicial review, should the need arise. The writ applications stand disposed in the aforesaid terms. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)