IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 8800 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.02.2011 Master Pranjay Jain ...Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. Aman Bahri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Anjali Kukkar, Advocate, for respondents No.1 & 2 Mr. Yashdeep Singh, Advocate for Mr. A.S.Virk, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. Mr. Navdeep Singh, Advocate for respondent No.4. **** RANJAN GOGOI, A.C.J.(Oral) This writ petition has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to treat “Dyslexia” as a disability under the provisions of The Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). A further prayer has been made to treat the candidature of the petitioner who is suffering from “Dyslexia” under the physically handicapped quota of 3% in terms of Section 39 of the Act for the purpose of admission to different institutes on the basis of AIEEE and JEE examination of the year 2010. CWP No. 8800 of 2010 (O&M) [2] At the outset, it must be put on record that pursuant to certain interim orders passed by the Court, the petitioner was allowed to sit in the aforesaid two examinations as a candidate belonging to the physically handicapped category. However, the marks secured by the petitioner did not entitle him to the benefit of admission even on being treated as a person belonging to the physically handicapped category. The aforesaid part of the writ petition, therefore, stood answered by the interim orders passed by the Court and the consequential direction issued. No further order in that regard therefore would be called for. Coming to the writ of mandamus prayed for for treating persons with “Dyslexia” as disabled persons, our attention has been drawn to an affidavit filed by the Director in the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Government of India before the Delhi High Court in a proceeding registered and numbered as Civil Writ Petition No. 10055 of 2004 in the said High Court. In paragraph No. (ix) of the said affidavit, it has been stated that the Directorate General of Health Services is of the view that “Dyslexia” can be considered under the 'Mental Retardation Category'. A copy of the letter of the Directorate General dated 02.07.2004 was enclosed to the said affidavit filed before the Delhi High Court as Annexure-B. Our attention has also been drawn to the order dated 12.03.2010 passed by the Delhi High Court in the said proceeding by which the same was closed on the basis of a further affidavit filed by the University of Delhi to the effect that admissions under 3% disability quota had been allowed to persons suffering from “Dyslexia” with 40% or more disability. The stand before this Court by the Union of India has been the same as before the Delhi High Court. Numerous medical opinions, the particulars of which need not to be specifically noticed, have been brought on record to show that “Dyslexia” is a kind of mental disability and further that the percentage of such disability cannot be determined in accordance with acceptable medical norms as on today. The extent/percentage of such disability is a factor that CWP No. 8800 of 2010 (O&M) [3] has to be considered under the provisions of the Act before acknowledging a person with disability to be entitled to the benefits under the Act. The materials on record, details of which have been noticed above, have revealed a consistent view that “Dyslexia” is a disability and, specifically, a form of mental retardation. Further consequential action in this regard would lie within the realm of an appropriate legislation. This is an area on which the Court can have no opinion; muchless, any direction can be issued by the Court. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the matter deserves full and complete consideration of the appropriate authority for the purpose of statutory recognition of the disability which is yet to be acknowledged by the provisions of the Act. Beyond the above, it would be highly inappropriate for the Court to say anything further. We, therefore, close this PIL by leaving it open to the concerned authority to take such further steps as may be necessary in the matter. No further order/direction beyond what has been stated will be justified. We are told that some institutions in other States of the country are affording admissions to candidates with “Dyslexia”. The present order will not be construed, in any manner, to permit or prohibit any institution from proceeding in the matter in a manner considered fit and appropriate. (RANJAN GOGOI) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE 03.02.2011 'ravinder'