Judgment 1. Petitioner seeks issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ, calling for the records of respondents ending with the order of 4th respondent in Letter No.Peea/Ph/TNEA 98, dated 23.7.1998 and quash the same, and direct the respondents herein to forthwith re-allot the petitioner herein to undergo First Year Engineering Course in Computer Science in any one of the Government Colleges under the control of 2nd respondent herein, and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. Petitioner is an or thopaedicaly physically handicapped person. Both his legs are affected by post-polio paralysis. The extent of disability is 60%. It is said that the direction of Artificial Limb Centre, K.K.Nagar, Government of Tamil Nadu Hospital, has issued a medical certificate, certifying that he is an orthopadically physically handicapped and eligible to be considered for admission to engineering colleges/technical institutions in his certificate dated 5.6.1997. It is said that during 1997 petitioner applied for admission to B.E. Degree course, and he was also selected under physically handicapped quota. But he could not get the subject of his choice, viz., computer science. So, he did not join during 1997-98. In the meantime, he attended plus two examination for improvement of marks, and again applied for admission to B.E. course for the present Academic year under physically handicapped quota. He has secured 256-98 marks in the qualifying examination conducted for the B.E. Degree courses by the respondents. Even then he was not given admission under physically handicapped quota though he should have been included as Sl.No.9. But under the General Open competition Quota, he was allotted to 5th respondent-college. Even though the Director of Artificial Limb Centre, K.K.Nagar, Chennai has issued a certificate that petitioner is physically handicapped and fit to be admitted to Engineering Course, 4th respondent has by communication dated 8.7.1998, directed the petitioner to appear before a committee constituted by respondents, to verify and assess the degree of his physical handicap. Accordingly, petitioner appeared before the committee on 13.7.1998. Petitioner was not selected under the physically Handicapped quota. Accordingly, petitioner appeared before the committee on 13.7.1998. Petitioner was not selected under the physically Handicapped quota. Petitioner issued a notice to the respondents to include his name under the said quota, for which 4th respondent has sent a reply on 23.7.1998 that petitioner could not be included in the list of physically handicapped persons as he was outside the range as assessed by team of physicians already prescribed. It is said that for the previous year, he was included in the quota, and there cannot be any change in his disability. It is also said that under the Disabilities (Equally Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1996 (Central Act 1 of 1996), Government educational institution and other educational institutions receiving aids from the Government shall reserve not less than 3% seats for persons with disabilities. Contrary to Sec.39 of the said Act, respondents reserved only 80 seats for the physically handicapped persons out of 23,000 seats. This according to the petitioner, is a negation of legal rights, and if the entire 3% was included, petitioner also would have been admitted. It is also said that in the prospectus, it is mentioned that the eligibility will have to be considered only on the basis of certificate issued, and there is no indication that a committee will be formed to assess the handicap. It is said that the prospectus binds both the candidate and the selection committee, and respondents cannot have a separate selection procedure by constituting a committee. According to writ petitioner, the rejection of his claim is arbitrary, illegal and the same is illegal to be quashed, and he must be allotted a seat under the physical handicapped quota. 3. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of 5th respondent wherein it is stated that on the guidelines framed by World Health Organisation (WHO), the Government of India, Ministry of Welfare published a notification in the Government of India Gazette Part I Sec,.I No.4-2/83 HW, dated 6th August, 1986, classifying handicapped persons into four categories viz., Mild, Moderate, severe and Profound/Total. If the disability is less than 40% then it is mild: if it is 40% and above, it is moderate; if it is 75% and above, then it is classified as severe, and 100% disability is profound/Total. If the disability is less than 40% then it is mild: if it is 40% and above, it is moderate; if it is 75% and above, then it is classified as severe, and 100% disability is profound/Total. It is also, contended that in the notification it is stated that the minimum degree of disability should be 40% in order to be eligible for any concession/benefits and that the various concessions and benefits would in future be available only to the moderage, severe and profound groups and not to the mild groups. It is also said that as regards person suffering from Cardo Pulamnary diseases, there may be no reservations in jobs and that those persons may, however, be considered for extending other concession such as exemption from typing etc. It is said that Institutions in India are designed to meet the requirements of normal persons or persons with moderate disability. For example, the classrooms, laboratories, library, etc. are either situated at different floors and/or far removed from each other. Hence, it is impossible for severally handicapped persons to move from one place to another without the assistance, which cannot be provided by the institutions. It is said that number of complaints had been received by the Government from various Engineering Institutions expressing their difficulties in giving admission to students with severe disabilities like the petitioner herein as their institutions are not designed and equipped to meet the special requirements of the severally handicapped/disabled. The Co-ordination Committee set up by the Government, therefore, has decided not to admit students having severe disability as the existing provisions in the institutions are not designed to meet the needs of such students. It is also said that as per Act 1 of 1996, neither the Central Government nor the State Government has formed any committee and no institution has also been established as provided under that Act. It is also said that even the Parliament has found that persons with severe disability require special institution with special facilities designed to meet the requirements of the severally disabled persons like the petitioner herein. The Government has not provided the same is the main reason why the petitioner could not be given the concession. It is said that the Co-ordination Committee set up under the Single Window System decided not to admit candidates with severe disability against physically Handicapped quota only and not against general quota. The Government has not provided the same is the main reason why the petitioner could not be given the concession. It is said that the Co-ordination Committee set up under the Single Window System decided not to admit candidates with severe disability against physically Handicapped quota only and not against general quota. As an Agency, the Anna University Selection Committee can only obey the Guidelines issued by the Co-ordination Committee under the Single window system. Therefore, there is no ground for interference under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. 4. I heard learned counsel on both sides. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for Anna University placed before me the Government of India Notification dated 6.8.1986 which was issued on the basis of Guidelines issued by World Health Organisation. As stated in the counter-affidavit itself, the Notification was issued to have a uniform definitions of the physically handicapped. It could be seen from the Notification that different definitions for various categories of handicapped are adopted in various schemes/programmes of the Central and State Governments. Government of India wanted to have uniformity over the same and considered various reports of committees and opinions of State Governments, and also the concerned Ministries. It is on that basis, the physically handicapped persons have been categorised into four groups, referred to above. It has also been decided by the committee that concessions or benefits should be given only to the moderate, severe and profound/total groups, and not to the mild groups. It is also declared that the minimum degree of disability should be 40 per cent in order to be eligible for any concession/benefit. The Government of India also suggested that a Medical Board has to be constituted at the District Level which should consist of the Chief Medical Officer/Sub Divisional Medical Officer and another expert in the specified field, viz., opthalmic surgeon in case of visual handicaps, either an E.N.T. Suregeon or an audiologist in case of speech and hearing handicaps; an orthopedic surgeon or a specialist in physical medicine and rehabilitation in case of locomotor handicaps, a pshychitatrist or a clinical pychologist or a teacher in special education in case of mental handicaps. In fact, this recommendation has been accepted and the same has been informed to all the State Governments for necessary action. In fact, this recommendation has been accepted and the same has been informed to all the State Governments for necessary action. It was thereafter the Central Government passed the persons with Disability (Equal Opportunity, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (Act No.1 of 1996), which came into force on 1.1.1996. It is also said that the Act was passed after the meeting to launch the Asian and Pacific Decade of Disabled Persons 19932002 convened by the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and Pacific held at Beijing from 1st to 5th December, 1992 which adopted the proclamation on the Full participation and Equality of People with Disabilities in the Asian and Pacific Region, and whereas it was felt necessary to implement the Proclamation, the Act was passed. Various provisions have been made under the Act for constitution of a committee, a medical Board, etc. So as to assess the disability and also extend certain concessions to which the disabled persons are entitled to. Both the Central and State Governments have bene directed to form Co-ordination Committees, executive committees, etc. Chapter V deals with ‘Education’. It deals with the duty of the Government to provide children with disabilities, free education, etc., and also to provide them with vocational training facilities. Sec.33 of the Act also provides that a minimum of 3% of the total intake must be reserved for physically handicapped persons. The Governments are also directed to identify the posts earmarked for the persons with disability. All educational institutions are also directed to reserve seats for persons with disability. Chapter XI of the Act deals with ‘Institution for persons with severe disabilities’. A reading of the entire Act shows that it was passed with a view to provide social security for handicapped persons. But, unfortunately, the follow-up action pursuant to the Act was not properly taken, and that is one of the reasons mentioned in the counter-affidavit for not giving admission to the petitioner. 6. The fact that the petitioner herein is severally handicapped is admitted in the counter-affidavit, and it is also admitted that he is eligible to be admitted. But the only reason why he was not included is, he is severally handicapped. Therefore, it was decided not to admit him under the single window system of admission. 6. The fact that the petitioner herein is severally handicapped is admitted in the counter-affidavit, and it is also admitted that he is eligible to be admitted. But the only reason why he was not included is, he is severally handicapped. Therefore, it was decided not to admit him under the single window system of admission. It has to be seen whether that is a valid reason, once it is found that he is eligible. The eligibility has to be found out with reference to percentage of disability. Even according to the Guidelines issued by the Government of India on 6.8.1986, only persons who are excluded are persons having disabilities less than 40% and all other category of disabled persons are eligible to be admitted in educational institutions under the category of ‘handicapped persons’. So far as the Selection Committee is concerned, they have added one more exclusion, which according to me, is not permissible. 7. The Guidelines, dated 6.8.1986 says about concessions or facilities to disabled persons. They read thus: “Concessions/Facilities which may be offered to disabled persons: Keeping in view the set of definitions and the categorisation being recommended, various Ministries, Departments and the State Governments shall have to also specify the facilities and concessions which would be available to different categories of the handicapped. The Committee recommends that if a person has the degree of disability below 40% in a particular category, no such benefits/concessions may be given to such a person. All other categories may be extended concessions/facilities like scholarships, job” reservation, aids and appliances either free of cost or at concessional rates, conveyance allowance, etc. For hearing handicapped, the committee recommends that 3 language formula may be revised so that the hearing handicapped have to study one language only. Ministry of Social and Womens Welfare may make out proposals based on these recommendations with the appropriate Ministry for necessary modifications n the Policy of 3 languages formula. The Committee also recommended that Ministry of Health and Family Welfare may also take up amending medical standards for necessary relaxations in respect of mild handicapped in all the categories so that on account of their mild disability, they are not put in a position that neither they are able to get the facility of job reservations nor are eligible otherwise for entering into services in the general category. The Medical Rules may also indicate in clear terms that loss of one eye will not be considered a disqualification unless the particular post is of such a technical nature that it requires of a person the use of both the eyes of three-dimensional vision. The same Medical Board at the district level may examine suitability or otherwise of a one-eyed person for a particular post. The degree and extent of disability of the 3 types, namely, visual hearing and orthopedic will be indicated as follows: (a) Mild …. less than 40 per cent (b) Moderate …. 40 per cent and above (c) Severe …. 75 per cent and above. (d) Profound/Total 100 per cent. For persons suffering from cardo pulmonary diseases, there may be no reservations in jobs. “These persons may, however, be considered for extending other concessions such as exemption in typing, etc. The Director-General of Healthy Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare will be the final authority, should there arise any controversy doubt regarding the interpretation of the definitions/classifications/evaluation tests, etc. Only those persons who have disability more than 40 per cent and above shall be eligible for registration in Employment Exchange in the category of handicapped and considered against jobs in public sector reserved for the physically handicapped.“ Regarding the question as to how the physical incapacity should be evaluated also, Guidelines have been given. On the basis of these Guidelines, the case of the petitioner herein should have been considered more sympathetically than rejecting his claim only on the ground that the Central and State Governments have not established their Committees, and also on the ground that there is no infrastructure in the Institution for admitting students like the petitioner herein. Lack of infrastructure facility is now taken as a ground for denying admission to the petitioner. I do not think that the selection procedure adopted by the Selection Committee, at least so far as the petitioner herein is concerned, was proper. 8. It is true that the Guidelines dated 6.8.1986 provides for the constitution of a Medical Board at the District Level. There is no such Medical Board in existence. But that does not stand in the way so far as the selection is concerned, for, even according to respondents, a Medical Board has been constituted for the purpose of selecting handicapped persons for Engineering courses. There is no such Medical Board in existence. But that does not stand in the way so far as the selection is concerned, for, even according to respondents, a Medical Board has been constituted for the purpose of selecting handicapped persons for Engineering courses. A Medical Board consisting of seven eminent doctors was constituted, and they have also followed the Guidelines dated 6.8.1986. When they have been constituted to assess the disability on the basis of the Guidelines dated 6.8.1986, they cannot exclude a person on the ground that his disability is severe. In this connection, it must also be noted that for the year 1997-98, a similar committee recommended the petitioner and found him eligible for admission. But the petitioner did not join only because the subject of his choice was not given, and the subject given to him was not to his liking. Even though persons in the Committee may differ, the disability which was certified on the basis of the Guidelines cannot differ, In the Reply notice issued by 4th respondent, it is said that the percentage of disability of the petitioner was assessed by a team of physicians and he was found outside the range already prescribed, and hence he could not be included in the list. In fact, the reason why the petitioner was not included is stated in paragraph 5 of the counter which reads thus: ”Further all the institutions in our country are designed to meet the requirements of normal persons or persons with moderate disability. For example, the classrooms, Laboratories, Library, etc. are either situated at different floors and/or far removed from each other. Hence it is impossible for severally handicapped persons to move from one place to another without assistance which cannot be provided by the institutions. I understand that a number of complaints had been received by the Government by various Engineering institutions expressing their difficulties in giving admission to students with severe disabilities like the petitioner as their institutions are not designed and equipped to meet the special requirements of the severely handicapped/ disabled. I understand that a number of complaints had been received by the Government by various Engineering institutions expressing their difficulties in giving admission to students with severe disabilities like the petitioner as their institutions are not designed and equipped to meet the special requirements of the severely handicapped/ disabled. Apparently because of this, the co-ordination committee set up by the Government under the Single Window System has decided not to admit students having severe disability institutions are not designed to meet the needs of such students.“ In view of the above admission in the counter, the disability is not with the petitioner, but with the institution. If he is qualified to get admission under that quota as per the Guidelines and also as certified by the Medical Board, he is not liable to be excluded. 9. In the result, the order (letter) of the 4th respondent dated 23.7.1998 is quashed. I direct the respondents to forthwith recall or the petitioner to undergo First Year Engineering Course in Computer Science in any one of the Government Colleges under the Control of 2nd respondent. I direct the respondents to issue necessary orders making such reallotment, within a period of one week from to-day. I further direct respondents 1 and 2 that whatever facilities that are required for a physically handicapped persons like the petitioner herein, must also be provided in the college wherever he is admitted. Respondents 1 and 2 are not permitted to plead that such facilities are not available to admit a candidate of this kind of disability. They are bound to provide necessary funds for making necessary infrastructural facilities. The writ petition is allowed as indicated above, however, without any order as to costs. Connected W.M.Ps. are closed.