Disabled student challenges IIT’s rejection in courtJune 25th, 2012 - 10:16 pm ICT by IANS
New Delhi, June 25 (IANS) The Delhi High Court Monday issued notice to the Indian Institute of Technology-Delhi (IIT-D) for denying admission to a student under the handicapped category on the ground that his disability was less than 40 percent.
Justice Pratibha Rani sought the response of IIT-D by July 2, the next date of hearing.
Petitioner Amit Kumar’s advocate Ashok Aggarwal said that the student underwent a medical examination at the instance of the IIT June 5 and the institute disqualified his admission saying that the he was 24 percent disabled instead of the 40 percent required to qualify under the category.
He is orthopedically disabled due to stiffness of knee and hip, Aggarwal said.
“It is pertinent to mention herein that the procedure adopted by IIT-Delhi is absolutely illegal, unjustified and unwarranted inasmuch as the petitioner was already having a valid certificate saying that the petitioner is suffering from 40 percent disability,” said the petition.
It said the board of doctors which examined the petitioner at the instance of IIT, was not validly constituted for the purpose of issuance of disablement certificate under the Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act.
The procedure adopted by the board was unreasonable, non-transparent and unjust, said Aggarwal.
The petition claimed that the petitioner possessed a valid disability certificate from Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital in Bihar which said that he was 40 percent disabled.
Counsel claimed once a child had been issued a certificate of 40 percent disability by a competent authority, he could not be called upon to undergo any medical examination as a pre-condition for admission to IIT.
“The impugned action on the part of the IIT in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for admission on the ground that he petitioner does not fulfil the requisite qualification of 40 percent disability is arbitrary, incorrect, discriminatory, unreasonable and unconstitutional,” the petition said.