$~4&5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 16258/2006 SAMBHAVANA ..... Petitioner versus DELHI UNIVERSITY & ORS. ..... Respondents + W.P.(C) 8879/2008 ASSOCIATION FOR THE RIGHTS OF DISABLE PERSONS ..... Petitioner versus DELHI UNIVERSITY ..... Respondent Through : Mr.S.K.Rungta, Sr.Advocate, with Mr.Pankaj Sinha and Mr.Kamlesh Kr.Mishra, Advocates for the petitioners in Item No.4. Mr.Samar Bansal with Ms.Shreya Singh, Advocates for the petitioner in Item 5. Mr.Jatin Teotia with Mr.S.S.Ahluwalia, Advocates for R-19,25,43,44,61,63,64,75 and 76 in Item No.4. Mr.M.K.Singh, Advocate for R-23 and 81 in Item No.4. Mr.Anuraj Mathur, Advocate for R-15 and 84 in Item No.4. Mr.Naushad Ahmed Khau, ASC for GNCTD in Item No.4. Mr.Vivek Goyal, CGSC for UOI in Item No.4. Mr.R.P.Saxena, Advocate, for R-31 in Item No.4. Mr.Samar Bansal with Ms.Sherya Singh, Advocates for R-85 in Item No.4. Mr.Ginny J.Ravtray, Advocate for JNU in Item No.5. Mr.Saurabh Banjerjee, Advocate for DU in Item Nos.4 and 5. Mr.Naushad Ahmed Khau, ASC for R-9, 14,15 and 50 in Item No.4. Ms.B.N.Soni with Mr.Aakash Yadav, Advocates for R-3,11,22, 30 and 54 in Item No.4. Dr.Surender Kumar Yadav, Intervener-in- person in Item No.5. Ms.Anita Sahani, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG O R D E R % 19.07.2017 CM APPL.11400/2012 in W.P(C)16258/2006 CM APPL.9764-65/2016 in W.P.(C) 8879/2008 1. Learned counsel for the Delhi University seeks liberty to file affidavit in compliance of the previous order – that has not been done so far. The affidavit shall be placed on record within two days. 2. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.85 has produced a chart, indicating the total number of sanctioned posts, the number of posts reserved for candidates under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation Act), 1995 and those actually filled by different categories of persons with disabilities. The chart prepared and furnished to the court by Respondent No.85 is hereby taken on record. 3. Prima facia, it indicates certain imbalances between VH and OH categories. Learned counsel for Delhi University states this imbalance is due to the result of nature of discipline that may be subject to reservation in individual colleges and also clandestine nature of the teaching course concerned. 4. Mr.Rungta, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court should clarify its previous order with respect to the possible change in the cycle applied for reserving the posts. 5. After careful consideration, this Court is of the opinion that no direction to change the cycle can be given; rather the Delhi University was directed to examine, on the basis of the objective material, whether imbalance was the result of an existing cycle of reservations at the relevant roster posts. 6. Learned counsel for Delhi University and Respondent No.85 point out that all colleges are not cooperating in furnishing data and relevant statistics. 7. The Nodal Officer of the Delhi University is hereby authorized to collect information from all colleges which fall under the Delhi University- either as affiliated colleges or non-affiliated colleges. These colleges are directed to respond to the queries in this regard by the Nodal Officer. The Nodal Officer shall collect the material and place them in a convenience chart not only having regard to the overall staff strength of the concerned colleges but also to the different teaching disciplines similar exercise shall be carried out in respect of the non-teaching staff. 8. The data and material supplied and compiled by the Nodal Officer shall be presented in the court in the form of a convenience chart within six weeks from the date of the order. The Nodal Officer shall issue a common circular to all colleges and shall also enclose copy of this order for due compliance by the colleges. 9. One of the interveners has voiced an apprehension that some educational institutions are not permitting the candidates with disabilities to compete even against general vacancies. Under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation Act), 1995, benefits to the persons with disabilities were not meant to restrict or confine to the opportunities provided by way of reservation alone. The general right to participate as candidates with or without reservation benefits cannot be denied if they are otherwise eligible in accordance with the concerned recruitment rules and shall be treated at par with all other candidates. 10. Renotify on 19th September, 2017. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. S.P.GARG, J. JULY 19, 2017/sa