Allahabad High Court Directs RMLNLU To Admit 17-Yrs-Old Student With Learning Disability In PWD Quota With Certificate From AIIMS
The Allahabad High Court has directed the Ram Manohar Lohia National Law University, Lucknow (RMLNLU) to admit the student-petitioner who is suffering from "Specific Learning Disability in Writing Only” and has a certificate from the Department of Psychiatry And National Drug Dependence Treatment Centre (NDDTC), AIIMS in B.A. L.L.B. batch of 2024.Justice Abdul Moin held that being 17 years...
The Allahabad High Court has directed the Ram Manohar Lohia National Law University, Lucknow (RMLNLU) to admit the student-petitioner who is suffering from "Specific Learning Disability in Writing Only” and has a certificate from the Department of Psychiatry And National Drug Dependence Treatment Centre (NDDTC), AIIMS in B.A. L.L.B. batch of 2024.
Justice Abdul Moin held that being 17 years of age, the petitioner could not have held a permanent disability certificate as per Clause 22.6 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 dated 05.01.2018. It was held that once the petitioner turned 18 years of age, he could apply for a fresh PWD certificate, which would be valid for life.
Factual Background
The petitioner applied for CLAT 2024 under the Persons With Disability quota. Petitioner claimed to have appeared in counselling in the Respondent University in the second round of counselling.
The petitioner's disability certificate was issued by the Department of Psychiatry And National Drug Dependence Treatment Centre (NDDTC), AIIMS, South Delhi stating that the petitioner suffered from a "Specific Learning Disability in Writing Only” which was more than 40 % disability. This certificate was issued to the petitioner when he was 17 years old in 2023 and is valid only for a period of 3 years till 2026.
The petitioner's candidature was rejected because the PWD certificate he produced was not in compliance with the University norms. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking admission to the Respondent University along with quashing the third provisional list of CLAT 2024 after redetermining the list.
High Court Observations
The Court observed that Clause 2 of the Schedule of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 provides for intellectual disability which includes “(a) "specific learning disabilities" meaning heterogenous group of conditions wherein there is a deficit in processing language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself as a difficulty to comprehend, speak, read, write, spell or to do mathematical calculations.”
Section 2(r) of the Act defines “person with benchmark disability” as a person with not less than 40% of the specified disability here specified disability has not been defined in measurable terms and includes a person with disability where specified disability has been defined in measurable terms, as certified by the certifying authority.
Section 16 of the Act provides that all Government and local bodies must endeavour that the institutions funded and/or recognized by them do not discriminate between children with disabilities and provide them inclusive education.
The Court held that the petitioner's disability according to his certificate was covered under Clause 2 of the Schedule read with Section 2(r) of the Act, 2016 as well as Section 2(zc) of the Act, 2016. It was held that the petitioner could not have been issued a permanent PWD certificate as he was only 17 years of age. A PWD certificate with lifelong validity could only be issued to him after attaining the age of 18 years, held the Court.
“Once the Guidelines to the Act, 2016 themselves do not provide for a permanent disability certificate to be issued for children less than 18 years of age and a permanent certificate can only be issued at the age of 18 years as such, in case the petitioner, who is aged less than 18 years, is not having a permanent disability certificate, consequently the same cannot be held against him in order to deprive him of admission in the respondent No.2 University more particularly when admittedly the petitioner has already secured the admission in the second round of counselling as per his merit under PWD in the respondent No.2 University.”
Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition and directed RMNLU to grant admission to the petitioner in BA LLB against the physically handicapped quota.
Case Title: Aakarsh Matta Thru. His Father Manoj Kumar Matta vs. Consortium Of National Law Universities, National Law School Of India Uni. Thru. Secy. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 522 [WRIT - C No. - 3647 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 522
Counsel for Petitioner: Rachit Gupta, Sushant Singh, Sushil Yadav, Vikas Singh
Counsel for Respondent: Rajat Gangwar, Ashmita Singh, Advocates and Manik Sinha, Senior Advocate assisted by Shishir Yadav, Advocate.