WP/6699/2000 of M.ANJANEYULU AND ANOTHER Vs UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMSSIONERS AND 2 on 30 December 2008

ORDER:

The first petitioner completed post graduation in Hindi and the secondpetitioner, post graduation in History. Both of them are visuallyhandicapped. The first petitioner completed M.Phil course in the Universityof Hyderabad in the year 1997 and thereafter was admitted as a ResearchScholar. The second petitioner joined M.Phil course in the History in the year1999. Both of them applied to the second respondent and the UniversityGrants Commission –the first respondent for grant of Junior ResearchFellowship (for short “JRF”), which results in extension of financial aid tocomplete the Ph.D and M. Phil as the case may be. The second respondentforwarded application to the first respondent.

Through their letter dated 25.4.1997, the first respondent informed thesecond respondent that no candidate would be eligible for award of JuniorResearch Fellowship unless he has cleared the National Evaluation Test (forshort “NET”) conducted by it. Through another communication, dated6.12.1999, the first respondent informed the second respondent that there isno provision to extend financial benefit to the petitioners since they have notcleared the NET. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the rejection of their claimby the respondents. It is stated that the first respondent itself exempted thevisually handicapped persons from such requirement through their memo,issued in May,1987. They also state that as recently as in the year 1992 thesecond respondent extended the benefit of JRF to one Mr.G.Anil Kumar, avisually handicapped candidate. Reference is made to the letter of May,1987 issued by the first respondent.

The first respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit. It is stated thatthough exemption was granted from appearing in NET in favour of visually handicapped candidates for grant of J.R.F., the same was withdrawn in theyear 1988 through proceedings dated 14/15.7.1988. It is also pleaded thatthe petitioners cannot claim the benefit of JRF or exemption from appearingNET as a matter of right. Relevant documents are also enclosed.

Sri K.Balagopal, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the firstrespondent recognized the necessity of providing benefits to the physicallyhandicapped, particularly, visually handicapped candidates and exemptedthem from appearing the NET, in the context of extending JRF. He contendsthat exemption was not withdrawn at any point of time and on the other hand,an additional obligation was created on the first respondent by the Parliamentby enacting “The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection ofRights and Full Participation) Act, 1995” (for short ‘the Act’). Learned counselfurther submits that Clause (d) of Section 30 of the Act mandates that theconcerned agency shall grant scholarships to students with disabilities anddespite the same, the respondents have not extended the benefit. He furthersubmits that the letter dated 14/15.7.1988 apart from not taking away thebenefit, in fact, reiterates exemption in favour of the visually handicappedcandidates.

Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the first respondentsubmits that no citizen can claim exemption from an academic requirementas a matter of right. He contends that though the visually handicappedcandidates were granted exemption in the year 1987, the same waswithdrawn in the next year after ascertaining the views of financial agencies. Learned counsel submits that the first respondent has provided for severalfacilities and benefits especially and exclusively for visually handicappedcandidates as is evident from the letter dated 25.4.1997.

The Union and the State Governments have been extending benefitsand reliefs of various categories, in favour of physically handicappedcandidates, particularly visually handicapped to enable them to study various

courses. Braille script is introduced and necessary financial as well asphysical assistance is extended to them. By overcoming several odds, thepetitioners have pursued their studies up to the post graduation and thereafterhave taken up research in their respective specializations.

The first respondent recognized provision of special benefit for visuallyhandicapped candidates. It has provided for 1% reservation for suchcandidates in fellowships and had exempted them from appearing NET. Therelevant paragraph of the memo issued in May,1987 reads as under:

“ I am directed to invite your attention to this office circular letternumbers F.100-1/8 D (RF/Review) dated the 28[th] Jan.,1981 and 28[th]September,1984 respectively (copies enclosed for reference) and tosay that it was indicated to the Universities inter alia that they mayaward fellowships to blind and physically handicapped students to theextent of 1% of the fellowships allocated to the Universities or at leastone per year. If they find any difficulty in meeting this requirement, ingenuine cases the UGC may provide extra fellowships to this extent.For the purpose of identifying persons under the category of blind andphysically handicapped the Commission was of the view that theblind, deaf and mute persons could be considered. Further, theCommission exempted the visually handicapped students fromappearing in the National Level Test being conducted by theCommission for the award of JRFs.”

The benefit under this memo is extended to number of visuallyhandicapped candidates and they were granted research fellowship withoutinsisting for appearing in the NET. The fact that such benefit was extendedeven in the year 1992 is evident from letter, dated 17.6.1992 issued by thesecond respondent in favour of one Mr.Anil Kumar. He too is a visuallyhandicapped candidate, and on the basis of the letter referred to above, hewas granted the scholarship at the rate of Rs.1800/- per month. Thepetitioners state that other candidates were also extended such benefit.

When the application made by the petitioners was forwarded to the firstrespondent, a reply was given on 25.4.1997 and the same reads as under: “F-17-9/83 (SA-I)

University Grants Commission

Bahadurshah Zafar Marg,

New Delhi-110 002.

25[th] April.1997

To:

Dy.Registrar, (FS),

University of Hyderabad,

Hyderabad-500046 (A.P.)

Sub: Continuation of exemption to visually handicapped students for appearing at UGC-JRF test 1% quota in fellowship to physically handicapped students clarification.

----------------------------------------------------------------- Sir, With reference to your letter No.UH/FS/UGC.F/97/1224 dated 22.03.1997 on theabove subject, I am directed to inform you as under:

Many a visually handicapped candidates take the NET examination of the UGC.They are exempted from the payment of examination fee. The test centers provide themthe facility of a Reader who are also paid by the test centers. Wherever questionsinvolve graphs or visuals, alternative questions are provided for the blind candidates.Extra time of half hour is being given for answering the paper-I. Paper-II or Paper-III.

Since 1989 the Net exam is meant for two purposes (1) Award of J.R.F. and (11)eligibility for lectureship. No one can become a lecturer unless he passes the NETexam. The J.R.F. is now given by the UGC on the result of NET only.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

(M.N.Gupta)

Under Secretary”

There is no reference either to the letter through which the exemptionwas granted or to the one through which the exemption was said to havebeen withdrawn. General opinion was expressed. This hardly can be said tobe a genuine consideration of the application of the petitioners.

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, reference ismade to letter dated 14/15-7-1988 as the one, through which the exemption infavour of visually handicapped candidates from appearing NET waswithdrawn. If the same is true, this court would have virtually left the matter atthat. The reason is that interference with policy decisions is a rarephenomenon. However, a perusal of the letter discloses that the benefitextended to visually handicapped candidates was not withdrawn at all. On the other hand, it indirectly reiterates the existence of such benefit. The basicpurpose of the letter of 14/15-7.1988 is to revise the emoluments with effectfrom 1.4.1987. The letter deals with the following four categories of researchscholars namely 1,2, 3 and 4.

The emoluments that were in force at that point of time for categories 1and 2 were Rs.800 per month for first and second years and Rs.950/-permonth for subsequent years. This was revised to Rs.1800/- and Rs.2,100/-respectively. For categories 3 and 4, the emoluments were Rs.1000/- for firsttwo years and Rs.1200/- for subsequent years. These in turn were revised to1800/- and 2100/-respectively. Same revision was effected to thesecategories also. At the end of the letter, the following paragraph is added:

In future no Junior Research Fellowship will be awarded to anyperson under category I above who has not qualified in one of the abovementioned National Level Tests or its equivalent tests accepted by theCommission. Testing mechanism is being worked out for futureselection of JRFs under categories 2,3 & 4 and wil be announcedseparately.”

A perusal of this discloses that qualification in NET was madecompulsory only for the first category of research scholars. In other words,rest of the three categories were exempted from NET or at least it is not madecompulsory for them. Further, proceedings issued for the purpose ofdiscontinuing an incentive or benefit for handicapped candidates are requiredto be very specific clear and unambiguous. The letter of May,1987 was clearin its purport as to the extension of benefit of exemption. In the letter dated14/15-7-1988, no reference is made to the one of May,1987 nor any mentionis made for discontinuing the benefit in favour of visually handicappedcandidates. Therefore, the whole basis pleaded by the respondents to denythe JRF ceases to exist.

Further, Parliament, as recently as in the year 1995 felt that in additionto the facilities that are extended to the physically handicapped candidates,some more are to be provided. When such is the extent of social obligationfelt by the State, denial of benefit, which is already in existence, cannot becountenanced in law.

Conclusion

The petitioners are said to have completed Ph.D and M.Phil coursesrespectively. However, they have incurred expenditure from their own limitedresources. The State cannot avoid its social obligations towards them. Theircases have to be extended the benefit, which they were entitled to, at therelevant point of time. Such a step would not be a favour to anyone. On theother hand, it would only discharge the social and statutory obligations.

Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the second respondent isdirected to forward immediately the claims of the petitioners with reference tothe dates of their admission into their respective courses as well as theireligibility by treating that the exemption granted under letter of May,1987 wasavailable to them. On receipt of such proposals from the second respondent,the first respondent shall pass appropriate orders within a period of twomonths from the date of receipt of the same. There shall be no order as to costs.

____________________

L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J

30.12.2008

Note:L.R.copy to be marked.B/o.Stp