Karnataka High Court
Harsha Shivaram vs National Law School Of India (Deemed ... on 2 November, 1998
Equivalent citations: ILR1996KAR902, AIR 1999 KARNATAKA 173, (1999) 1 KANT LJ 245
ORDER
1. The respondent-University has been constituted under the Act called "National Law School of India University Act, 1986". The petitioner being desirous of being admitted to the five year LL.B. Course run by the University had sat at the entrance test on 3-5-1998, but his ranking in the merit list being 499, he could not secure admission. Subsequently, he filed the present writ petition claiming that he is a disabled person with deficient eye sight and therefore he is entitled to a seat in that capacity in view of the provisions contained in Section 39 of the "Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, ("the Act", for short).
2. Section 39 of the Act reads as under:
"39. All educational institutions to reserve seats for persons with disabilities.--All Government Educational Institutions and other educational institutions receiving aid from the Government, shall reserve not less than three per cent seats for persons with disabilities".
3. In the statement of objections filed on behalf of the University it has been categorically stated that it is a self-financing University and it does not receive any aid from the Government. In the writ petition the petitioner has nowhere even whispered that the University is receiving any aid from the Government. Even the land over which the University has set up its infrastructure and which forms its campus for academic pursuit, is owned-by the Bangalore University and has been given on lease to the respondent-University.
4. A bare reading of Section 39 of the Act as extracted above clearly shows that in terms thereof a reservation of three per cent for persons with disability is required to be provided in Government Educational Institutions and other education institutions receiving aid from the Government. In the present case the respondent-University is neither a Government Educational Institution nor is it receiving any aid from the Government. If that be the situation then per se Section 39 will have no bearing.
5. Anyhow on 18-9-1998 it was informed by Mr. Udaya Holla, learned Counsel for the University, that a Committee headed by Justice Rama Jois, former Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court, has been appointed to examine the feasibility/possibility of providing reservation to disabled candidates.
6. In view of the said statement made at the Bar, it is expected that the University will take appropriate decision governing the recommendations made by the Committee. Nonetheless it will be in the exclusive prerogative of the University to take a decision and the present order should not be taken as a direction to the University for that purpose.
7. With the said observations the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.