Dismissed

Sundus Hamadaniya Salahudheen v. National Institute of Fashion Technology

Kerala HC10 Aug 2017WP(C)/20018/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought admission under the physically handicapped quota due to learning disorder. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, ruling that learning disorder was not recognized under the 1995 Act valid at the time of application and the 2016 Act. The court held the rejection was legitimate.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no direction to reschedule counselling or allot seat.

Sundus Hamadaniya Salahudheen Vs National Institute… — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017/19TH SRAVANA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 20018 of 2017 (B)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

SUNDUS HAMADANIYA SALAHUDHEEN, D/O. SALAHUDHEEN HAMADANI, HAMADANIYA HOUSE, VAZHAKALA, THRIKKAKARA, ERNAKULAM - 682 021.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶10

1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FASHION TECHNOLOGY, MINISTRY OF TEXTILES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NIFT CAMPUS, HAUZ KHAS, NEAR GULMOHAR PARK, NEW DELHI - 110 016, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

¶11

2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, NIFT NIFT CAMPUS, HAUZ KHAS, NEAR GULMOHAR PARK, NEW DELHI -110 016.

¶12

3. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL, 2ND FLOOR HEAD OFFICE, NIFT CAMPUS, HAUZ KHAS, NEAR GULMOHAR PARK, NEW DELHI - 110 016.

¶13

4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ADMISSIONS), NIFT CAMPUS, HAUZ KHAS, NEAR GULMOHAR PARK, NEW DELHI - 110 016.

¶14

*** ADDITIONAL R5 IMPLEADED**

¶15

5. DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FASHION TECHNOLOGY, NIFT CAMPUS, DHARMASHALA, MANGATTUPARAMBA, KANNUR - 670 562.

¶16

ADDITIONAL R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 29.06.2017 IN I.A.NO. 9832 OF 2017.

¶17

BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL ADV. SMT. PREETHA

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Msd.

¶20

WP(C).No. 20018 of 2017 (B)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶23

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PHYSIO EDUCATION EVALUATION REPORT DATED 13.06.2017 ISSUED BY DR.AJEESH P.R. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE PERSONS WITH DISABILITY ACT.

¶24

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT REPORT AND THE CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY DR. SIVA PRASAD DATED 02.03.2016.

¶25

EXHIBIT P2 (A) TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT REPORT AND THE CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY DR. SIVA PRASAD 07.06.2017.

¶26

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE GRADE SHEET CUM CERTIFICATE OF PERFORMANCE ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION DELHI DATED 19.05.2014.

¶27

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL EXAMINATION MARKS STATEMENT OF NATIONAL INSTITUTE OPEN SCHOOL DATED 06.06.2016.

¶28

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RESULT OF WRITTEN ENTRANCE EXAMINATION.

¶29

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RESULT OF B.DES PROGRAMME. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINE FOR COUNSELING AND ADMISSION PROCESS.

¶30

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 07.06.2017.

¶31

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 06.06.2017.

¶32

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL COMMUNICATION DATED 11.06.2017.

¶33

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO EXBT P10 ISSUED BY THE ADMISSION DEPARTMENT OF THE RESPONDENTS.

¶34

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE VALUATION REPORT OF AMRITHA INSTITUE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE.

¶35

EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION.

¶36

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶42

W.P.(C) No.20018 of 2017

¶43

Dated 10^th August, 2017.

¶44

J U D G M E N T

¶45

The petitioner is a person suffering from learning disorder (Dyslexia). She applied for admission to the National Institute of Fashion Technology (`the NIFT') for B.Deslife course scheduled against the quota earmarked for Differently Abled Candidates (PHP). The last date fixed for submission of applications for the course in terms of the admission guidelines published by the NIFT was 10.1.2017. The selection for admission in terms of the admission guidelines was on the basis of the Entrance Examination and Situation Test. The candidates who are selected in the Entrance Examination and Situation Test have to appear thereafter for the counselling. The petitioner, who qualified in the Entrance Examination and Situation Test, registered for the counselling scheduled on 8.6.2017. It was provided in the admission guidelines that

¶46

WPC No.20018 of 2017

¶47

¶48

candidates claiming admission against the quota earmarked for PHP candidates shall produce their disability certificate at the time of counselling and shall also appear before the Board constituted by the NIFT for assessment to ascertain the suitability to pursue the course applied for by them. The case of the petitioner is that though she had applied for disability certificate from the Medical Board attached to the District Hospital, Ernakulam on 6.6.2017, the same was not issued since the request could be considered only by the Medical Board to be convened in due course. In the circumstances, it is stated that the petitioner produced Ext.P2(a) disability certificate issued by a private medical practitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that Ext.P2(a) certificate has not been accepted by the authorities as a valid certificate and consequently she was not permitted to participate in the counselling. According to the petitioner, the conduct of the respondents in rejecting Ext.P2(a) certificate is illegal. The petitioner therefore, seeks directions to the respondents to reschedule the counselling and allot her a seat for the course

¶49

WPC No.20018 of 2017

¶50

¶51

applied for by her against the quota earmarked for PHP candidates, in accordance with her merit.

¶52

A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The stand taken by the respondents in the statement is that in terms of the admission guidelines issued by the NIFT, PHP candidates are bound to produce disability certificate issued by the competent authority under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (the 1995 Act); that Ext.P2(a) certificate produced by the petitioner is not a disability certificate issued under the 1995 Act and that therefore, the petitioner is not eligible to claim admission against the seats earmarked for PHP candidates.

¶53

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Assistant Solicitor General. The admission guidelines issued by the NIFT was also made available by the learned Assistant Solicitor General at the time of hearing.

¶54

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the 1995 Act has been replaced by the Rights of

¶55

WPC No.20018 of 2017

¶56

¶57

Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (the 2016 Act) and that Ext.P2(a) certificate produced by the petitioner before the authorities at the time of counselling is a certificate which would satisfy the requirements of the 2016 Act. It is, however, conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P2 (a) is not in accordance with the form prescribed under the 2016 Act. According to the learned counsel, in so far as it is admitted by the respondents that the petitioner is suffering from learning disorder, which is recognized as a disability under the 2016 Act, the conduct of the respondents in rejecting the certificate on the ground that the same is not in the prescribed form is wholly arbitrary. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Manjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and others [(1987)1 SCC 549], in support of the said contention.

¶58

The learned Assistant Solicitor General pointed out that the rules under the 2016 Act prescribing the form of disability certificate was brought into force long after the issuance of Ext.P2(a) certificate issued on 15.06.2017.

¶59

WPC No.20018 of 2017

¶60

¶61

The relevant portion of the admission guidelines

¶62

issued by the NIFT dealing with PHP candidates reads thus :

¶63

“Differently Abled Candidates (PHP)

¶64

Medical Certificate issuing Authority for Physically Handicapped Candidates(PHP)

¶65

At the time of submission of application, Physically Handicapped candidates shall be required to necessarily attach a copy of Disability Certificate issued in Form II, Form III or Form IV as defined in sub-clause (t) of section 2 by a Medical Authority as defined under section- 4 of Rules framed by Central/State Govt. in exercise of the powers conferred by subsections (1) and (2) of section 73 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (1 of 1996).

¶66

Such candidates are required to produce the original Medical Certificate both at the time of Counselling and at the time for Admission to the Institute.”

¶67

It is evident from the aforesaid provision contained in the admission guidelines that candidates claiming admission to the course against the quota earmarked for PHP candidates are bound to produce Disability Certificate issued under the 1995 Act. The last date fixed for submission of the applications in

¶68

terms of the admission guidelines was 10.1.2017. On

¶69

WPC No.20018 of 2017

¶70

¶71

10.01.2017, the 1995 Act was in force. The extracted portion of the admission guidelines is not under challenge. It is conceded by the petitioner that the learning disorder is not a disability recognized under the 1995 Act. As such, the petitioner is not entitled to admission against the quota earmarked for PHP candidates in terms of the admission guidelines.

¶72

As noted above, the case of the petitioner is that the 1995 Act has been replaced by the 2016 Act and Ext.P2(a) certificate produced by the petitioner conforms to the 2016 Act. True, the 1995 Act has been replaced by the 2016 Act. It is seen that the 2016 Act came into effect only on 19.04.2017, long after the last date fixed for submission of applications for admission. As such, even if Ext.P2(a) is accepted as a disability certificate conforming to the requirements of the 2016 Act, the petitioner cannot claim admission on the basis of the said certificate. True, it is held by the Apex Court in Manjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and others (supra) that the form of certificate is irrelevant if the factum of disability is admitted. In so far as it is found that the

¶73

WPC No.20018 of 2017

¶74

¶75

petitioner is not qualified for admission against the quota earmarked for PHP candidates in terms of the admission guidelines, the decision of the Apex Court relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner may not be relevant.

¶76

The writ petition, in the circumstances, is without merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶77

Sd/-

¶78

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶79

tgs

Sundus Hamadaniya Salahudheen v. National Institute of Fashion Technology

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sundus Hamadaniya Salahudheen v. National Institute of Fashion Technology

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

DM Education and Research Foundation Vs Rajeev Sadanandan

Casa Land Holdings (P) Ltd. Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thalassery

Hansar M.K Vs Kerala Water Authority, Represented by the Managing Director

P.P. Lalu Vs Kerala State Financial Enterprises

Sarasamma Vs the Federal Bank

Mohammed Abdul Salim Vs District Collector