JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers: “(i) Issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records which lead to passing exhibit P9(a) communication rejecting the request of the petitioner for a scribe and extra time in the SSLC exams in March 2020 under the Disabilities Act 2016 and quash the same. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 4th respondent to pass an order providing a scribe and extra time for the petitioner for his ensuing SSLC examination schedule in March 2020. (iii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 4th respondent to pass an order providing all the rights described in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 to the petitioner for his ensuing SSLC examination schedule in March 2020 (iv) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 5th respondent to pass an order providing all the rights described in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 to the petitioner for his ensuing SSLC examination schedule in March 2020” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a differently abled child and has a borderline IQ of 76 with dyslexia as certified by the competent medical board. It is submitted that though the petitioner had submitted applications for the assistance of scribe and for extra time in the SSLC examinations, but the request has been rejected by the respondents. Ext.P5 recommendation by the Headmistress of the school in which the petitioner studies has also not been considered. 4. The learned Government Pleader submits, on instructions, that the petitioner has submitted a certificate, which is a rejection certificate of disability showing a learning disability of 25%. It is submitted that the provisions of the guidelines issued for the SSLC examinations, 2020 at Clause XVII thereof provides for benefits including extra time and scribe only if the disability is to the extend of 40% or more. It is submitted that in view of the fact that the petitioner has produced only a rejection certificate from the medical board showing a disability of 25%, the benefits cannot be extended to the petitioner since the guidelines specifically provides only for grant of the benefits in case of disabilities of 40% or more. 5. It is submitted that in view of the fact that the petitioner has produced only a rejection certificate from the medical board showing a disability of 25%, the benefits cannot be extended to the petitioner since the guidelines specifically provides only for grant of the benefits in case of disabilities of 40% or more. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (for short 'the Act'). It is submitted that “person with benchmark disability” and “person with disability” are separately defined in terms of Sections 2(r) and 2(s) of the Act and that the provision for the grant of educational support including scribe and extra time are provided for in Section 17(i) of the Act. It is stated that Section 17(i) of the Act provides for suitable modifications in the curriculum and examination system to meet the needs of students with disabilities such as extra time for completion of examination paper, facility of scribe and exemption from 2nd and 3rd language courses. It is stated that the language of the section specifically provides for such benefits to “students with disabilities” and not to persons with benchmark disabilities as defined in Section 2(r) of the Act. 6. Since it is admitted that the petitioner suffers disability of 25%, the benefits as sought for and recommended by Ext.P5 are liable to be extended to the petitioner. There will be a direction to the respondents to provide the educational benefit of scribe as well as extra time to the petitioner in the ensuing SSLC examination. Appropriate orders shall be passed by competent among the respondents within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 7. On the request of the learned Government Pleader, I may add that the directions issued in this case are confined to the facts of this case since this is an admitted case of multiple learning disabilities and the directions cannot be treated as a precedent. This writ petition is ordered accordingly.