THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.1064 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is a Post-graduate in Tourism and Hospitality. The University Grants Commissioner (UGC), conducts National Eligibility Test (NET) to confer eligibility as Junior Research Fellowship or Lecturer, in June and December, of every year. The petitioner suffers from handicap of Cerebral Palsy. This results in the mal- functioning of limbs. The disability was certified by the Regional Medical Board, Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, at 40%. Through out his studies, the petitioner was extended the benefit of extra time in the examinations. The NET examination was held on 27-12-2009. Well in advance, the petitioner submitted a representation. Clause 16 of the brochure, issued by the UGC, provides for certain facilities in favour of handicapped candidates. The petitioner made a request to the respondents to extend the said facility. His grievance is that such a facility was not extended, and he was denied the benefit under it. He seeks appropriate direction, in this regard. The petitioner has also placed before this Court, the correspondence, that ensued in this matter. Heard Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Deepak Bhattachargee, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The physical status of the petitioner was certified way back in 1995, and he has been extended various facilities. The controversy is about the eligibility of the petitioner to avail the benefit under clause 16 of the directions, issued by the UGC, for the physically handicapped candidates. It reads as under: “Cl.16. For Visually Handicapped (VH) candidates thirty minutes’ extra time shall be provided separately for paper-I and Paper-II. For paper-III, forty five minutes’ extra time shall be providd. They will also be provided the services of a scribe who would be a graduate in a subject other than that of the candidate. Those Physically Handicapped (PH) candidates who are not in a position to write in their own hand- writing can also avail these services by making prior request (at last one week before the date of UGC-NET) in writing to the centre Co-ordinator. Extra time and facility of scribe would not be provided to other Physically Handicapped candidates”. From this it is evident that the handicapped candidates are per se entitled for the benefit of 30 minutes’ extra time for papers- I and II, separately, and 45 minutes for paper-III. In addition to that, they are entitled to be provided a scribe. Admittedly, the petitioner does not fall into that category. The clause extends all these benefits to other physically handicapped candidates, only in case they are “not in a position to write in their own hand-writing”. The petitioner wrote the examination in his own handwriting. Therefore, on a true interpretation of this clause, the petitioner cannot be extended the benefit, of extra time. In case he wanted the provision to be interpreted in such a way, as to cover his case also, he ought to have approached this Court, well in advance. Be that as it may, the respondents state that the petitioner was extended the benefit of extra time. The petitioner, however, denies the same. Assuming that the respondents did not permit any extra time to the petitioner, there is not much, that this Court can do, at this stage. The reason is that the examination was already conducted. The clause in its present form does not enable the other physically handicapped candidates to avail the benefit of extra time, in case they write the examination, in their own hand-writing. If the petitioner is so advised, he can make representation well in advance, if he takes the examination, next time. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to claim the benefit of extra time, in future NET examination, by making application before hand, and if necessary, by approaching this Court, well in advance. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.17-02-2010. KO