Observing that every examination, be it a competitive examination or for an admission to a course, would prescribe minimum qualifying marks to decide if one is in the race or not, the Madras High Court has refused to come to the aid of a differently abled person from pursuing his PhD, as he had failed to secure the minimum qualifying marks as prescribed by the University Grants Commission (UGC) in the Common Eligibility Test (CET).
Chennai:
“Since the petitioner failed to secure the minimum qualifying marks even after applying all the allowances given to a person with disabilities, the court cannot come to his rescue,” the judge said.
The petitioner had contended that the minimum qualifying marks was not stipulated in the instructions given to the candidates appearing for the CET examination in 2018. He had submitted that had the instructions contained such a condition, he would have prepared well for the entrance examination to secure the seat to make his dream come true.
The university for its part had submitted that the decision relating to a minimum CET score of 10 out of 35 marks was taken by the Research Board and Standing Committee on Academic Affairs on June 4, 2018, which was duly approved by the Syndicate of the University.
Holding that when the 2016 Regulations mandates 50 per cent for eligibility, the petitioner cannot claim ignorance with respect to the minimum qualifying marks, the judge added, “In the instant case, the petitioner secured only 7.70 marks out 35 marks which disentitles him from securing the seat as the minimum qualifying marks was fixed at 10.”
However, the judge in his order made it clear that this court hopes that this order will not dampen the spirit of the petitioner to write the CET and other examinations in future and come up with good marks to secure a CET and complete the PhD course to come up with flying colours. She also directed the varsity to implement the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, in letter and spirit.
While dismissing a plea moved by S Dhayalan, who suffers from 100 per cent vision impairment, seeking to direct Bharathiyar University to admit him in the PhD programme, Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana said, “Bharathiyar University has the statutory duty to reserve not less than five per cent of seats for persons with benchmark disabilities. It also must give relaxation of five years in upper age limit for admission to the candidates with benchmark difficulties. But at the same time, the minimum qualification of 10 marks in the CET examination cannot be given a go-by.”
“Since the petitioner failed to secure the minimum qualifying marks even after applying all the allowances given to a person with disabilities, the court cannot come to his rescue,” the judge said.
The petitioner had contended that the minimum qualifying marks was not stipulated in the instructions given to the candidates appearing for the CET examination in 2018. He had submitted that had the instructions contained such a condition, he would have prepared well for the entrance examination to secure the seat to make his dream come true.
The university for its part had submitted that the decision relating to a minimum CET score of 10 out of 35 marks was taken by the Research Board and Standing Committee on Academic Affairs on June 4, 2018, which was duly approved by the Syndicate of the University.
Holding that when the 2016 Regulations mandates 50 per cent for eligibility, the petitioner cannot claim ignorance with respect to the minimum qualifying marks, the judge added, “In the instant case, the petitioner secured only 7.70 marks out 35 marks which disentitles him from securing the seat as the minimum qualifying marks was fixed at 10.”
However, the judge in his order made it clear that this court hopes that this order will not dampen the spirit of the petitioner to write the CET and other examinations in future and come up with good marks to secure a CET and complete the PhD course to come up with flying colours. She also directed the varsity to implement the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, in letter and spirit.