The judge further expressed its “inability” to subscribe to the submission made by the boy’s counsel, relying on his medical reports, that he was entitled to be educated in a college proximate to his place of residence.Suffering from intellectual or learning disability cannot be ground for any “sympathy or compassion”, the Delhi High Court has said while refusing to direct two Delhi University colleges to give admission to a student suffering from dyslexia.
“This court empathises with the petitioner. Dyslexia is known to be an unfortunate, though rarely a disabling, disorder…there are several instances of dyslexics who have made names for themselves,” Justice C Hari Shankar said.
“Notable among them are Alexander Graham Bell, Lewis Carroll and Leonardo da Vinci. Integration of dyslexics into the mainstream is the need of the hour…”
The court’s observation came on a plea by a student seeking direction to Sri Guru Gobind Singh College of Commerce and Kirori Mal College to offer him admission in B.Com course, under 5% quota for intellectually disabled persons for the academic year 2018-19, even though he didn’t meet the prescribed cut-off.
In his plea, he said that on account of his 40% disability, he was in need of substantial familial support to pursue his studies, which had necessitated admission in a college as close to his residence as possible.
The court, however, was of the view that “no doubt, for candidates suffering from intellectual disabilities, it may have been necessary, or at least appropriate, for the colleges to fix a cut-off substantially lower than that fixed for candidates suffering from other forms of disability.”
“The cut-off for students suffering from disability, by the SGGC and KMC were 70% and 89.25% respectively. Assuming that insisting on this cut-off, for candidates suffering from intellectual or learning disability, cannot be approved in law, the court cannot, as a sequitur or corollary thereto, direct admission of the petitioner, who has scored only 43.7% in his Class XII…,” it said.
No mandamus, to the said effect can, regrettably, be issued by the court,” it said.
“No such mandate is, however, to be found in the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act. Even if the court were to hold the fixation of the same cut-off, for candidates suffering from different disabilities, to be ex facie unsustainable, it is not possible for the court to travel the extra mile and to determine the level, or point, at which such cut-off would require to be fixed.
The judge further expressed its “inability” to subscribe to the submission made by the boy’s counsel, relying on his medical reports, that he was entitled to be educated in a college proximate to his place of residence.
“Equally, writs cannot be issued, by any court governed by the rule of law, solely on the basis of sympathy or compassion…,” it said, adding that “it would be for the University, or the colleges, to fix cut-offs, for the admission of dyslexics and with persons suffering from intellectual or learning disabilities, at an appropriate or realistic level, so that they are able to secure admission and pursue their studies.”
“As things stand, the fact remains that the petitioner has been unable to secure the cut-off marks fixed either by SGGC or KMC for admission to the B.Com course… and for this reason, has also been unable to apply to admission to either of the said colleges,” it added.
For this reason, he listed SGGC as his first choice against the quota of vacancies available for disabled candidates. His second choice was KMC, as it was located about 6 km from his residence.
