Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1038 (JK)

Bahadur Lal v. State

2017-11-29

ALOK ARADHE

body2017
JUDGMENT : With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks a writ of certiorari for quashment of Government Order dated 05.03.2014 issued by the State Government to the extent it provides that any inmate can stay in the institution/ blind school till graduation or till attaining the age of 25 years whichever is earlier. The petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus commanding to the respondents to increase the intake capacity of blind inmates from 25 to 100 in the residential school for visually impaired children at Roop Nagar, Jammu and to permit the petitioner to continue in the school for visually impaired children at Roop Nagar, Jammu. 2. Facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner is a specially abled person and is visually impaired with disability of 100 per cent. The petitioner got enrolled himself with the School for Visually impaired Children at Roop Nagar, Jammu. The petitioner admittedly has passed the graduation examination and is aged about 21 years. The State Government in the year 1979 vide Government Order dated 14.03.1978 had accorded sanction for rules for home for blinds which was established for the protection, welfare and education of blind inmates. As per Rule 3 of the said rules, the eligibility for admission in the school is that an individual in the age group of 10 to 15 years having total blindness of sight could have been admitted. Thereafter, by an order dated 14.03.1979, Rule 13 of the Rules for home for blind was modified by which it was provided that period of stay of an inmate shall be till his rehabilitation or till he can feed for himself. Thereafter, by an order dated 05.03.2014, Rule 13 was recast and was framed as follows: “Period of stay: An inmate will be retained in the institution till graduation or attaining 25 years of age whichever is earlier.” 3. The petitioner in the instant case has challenged the validity of the Government Order dated 05.03.2014. In the aforesaid factual background the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has passed his graduation and the petitioner should be permitted to reside in the residential accommodation which is meant for visually impaired children. The petitioner in the instant case has challenged the validity of the Government Order dated 05.03.2014. In the aforesaid factual background the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has passed his graduation and the petitioner should be permitted to reside in the residential accommodation which is meant for visually impaired children. It is further submitted that in any case, a direction be issued to the competent authority to increase the intake capacity of the persons who suffer from visual impairment from 25 to 100 in the residential school at Roop Nagar, Jammu. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.4 has submitted that the school is being run only up to 8th class. Thereafter, the students take admission in the regular school as well as universities and reside in the hostels. It is further submitted that in view of fact that persons, who have completed the graduation, are staying in the residential accommodation and no accommodation can be provided to the students, who are eligible to take admission in the school and are entitled to pursue their studies. It is further submitted that the aforesaid government orders are administrative in nature and have no statutory force. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The State Legislatures have enacted the J&K Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act 1988. Section 15(a) of the Act enjoins a duty on the Government to ensure that every child with disability has the access to free education in an appropriate environment till he attains the age of 18 years. Thus, under the statute, the respondents 1 to 3 are under an obligation to provide access to free education to a person suffering from visual impairment or any other disability till he attains the age of 18 years. The petitioner admittedly is aged about 21 years and has completed his graduation. The order dated 05.03.2014 cannot be held to be violative of Section 15(a) of the Act and, therefore, the challenge to the aforesaid clause fails. 7. The petitioner admittedly is aged about 21 years and has completed his graduation. The order dated 05.03.2014 cannot be held to be violative of Section 15(a) of the Act and, therefore, the challenge to the aforesaid clause fails. 7. However, in case the petitioner submits a representation with regard to increase in intake capacity to the competent authority within a period of one week from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today, the aforesaid authority shall consider the same by a speaking order within a period of four weeks from today. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of.