Full Judgment Text
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.3886 OF 2022
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.24683 of 2018)
NAMAN VERMA Appellant
VERSUS
THE DIRECTOR, THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
BOMBAY & ORS. Respondents
O R D E R
1. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated
17.04.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in
Writ Petition No.6818 of 2013.
2. Claiming to be suffering from ‘learning disabilities’
known as “Dyscalculia”, the appellant preferred the
aforestated writ petition praying for following principal
relief:
“(a) this Hon’ble Court may please issue a writ of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India directing the Respondent to take the
petitioner into course of Master Design in 2013
batch.”
3. Under the interim orders passed by the High Court, her
Signature Not Verified
candidature was directed to be considered and the appellant was
Digitally signed by Dr.
Mukesh Nasa
Date: 2022.05.14
15:17:09 IST
Reason:
admitted to the course of Master in Design.
2
4. With the passage of time, the appellant completed the
course successfully.
5. However, when the writ petition was taken up for final
disposal, after considering various issues, the entitlement of
the appellant under the provisions of the Persons with
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and
Full Participation) Act, 1995 (“1995 Act” for short) was not
accepted.
6. The High Court was then confronted with the issue as to
what would be the fate and what directions can be passed when
the appellant had completed the course under the interim
directions. While dealing with the issue, the High Court
observed as under:
“We are of the view that although the petitioner may
be entitled to be declared successful in the course
we are unable to grant her any further relief in this
petition for want of necessary powers under Article
226 to declare the petitioner as having passed M Des
program held by IDC.”
7. We have heard Mr. Anand Verma, learned Advocate in support
of the appeal, and Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional
Solicitor General for the respondent.
3
8. At the outset, it must be mentioned that 1995 Act now
stands replaced by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,
2016 (“2016 Act” for short).
9. It is submitted that considering the provisions of the
2016 Act in any event of the matter, the entitlement of the
appellant is certainly made out. We need not go into this
issue.
10. Though we affirm the view taken by the High Court on the
issues of law which came up for determination by the High
Court, considering the fact that the appellant has completed
the course, we are not persuaded to cancel her candidature so
as to put her qualification in jeopardy.
11. We, therefore, exercise our power under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India and declare that the appellant has
successfully completed the course of Master in Design and that
the qualification shall hold good for all practical purposes
hereafter.
12. However, at the cost of repetition we make it clear that
the judgment rendered by the High Court on questions of law is
affirmed and as and when the entitlement of the appellant under
the provisions of the 2016 Act is to be considered, the same
shall be considered purely in accordance with law.
4
13. The appropriate steps including handing over of the degree
and all other testimonials to the appellant shall be completed
within four weeks from today.
14. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of, with
no order as to costs.
............................J.
(UDAY UMESH LALIT)
............................J.
(S. RAVINDRA BHAT)
............................J.
(SUDHANSHU DHULIA)
New Delhi,
May 11, 2022