In the Court
of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
National Capital Territory of Delhi
25- D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2
Phone-011-23216002-04, Telefax: 011-23216005, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]
Case No. 8/1033/2017/10 /2135-2136 Dated: 07.05.2019
In the matter of:
Ms. Swati
Babber,
House No. 198,
Ward No. 2, Mehrauli,
New
Delhi-110030. ….…….Complainant
Versus
The Registrar,
Guru Gobind
Singh Indraprastha University,
Sector-16/C,
Dwarka,
New
Delhi-110078. ..……..Respondent
ORDER
The above named
complainant, a person with 40% disability due to dyslexia vide her complaint
dated 20.10.2017 submitted that she was failed intentionally in Town Planning
paper of B. Arch 4th year (2016-2017). She
further submitted that the answer sheet of all the students of the said paper
including her answer sheet contained the same answers. While other students
were declared pass, she was declared fail. She requested for proper
Investigation by perusing the answer sheets of all the students (internal and
external exams) which would prove discrimination against her. She also requested to restrain destruction of
the answers sheets.
2. The complaint was
taken up with the respondent under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,
2016 hereinafter referred to as the Act, vide show cause-cum-hearing notice
dated 20.10.2017 with the direction to the respondent to produce the answer
sheets of all the students of B. Arch 4th year 2016-2017 Town planning paper
(Internal and External) on the date of hearing.
3. During the hearing on
22.11.2017, Ms. Shaili Srivastav, Associate Professor, Vastukala Academy
College of Architecture, where the complainant was studying, produced the answer sheets of 29 candidates
along with the break-down of internal evaluation sheets (4th Year-B)
Session 2016-17. She submitted that the complainant obtained 68% marks and did
not fail in internal evaluation. She also produced the answer sheets of the class
test of the paper ‘Transport and Housing’ in which complainant obtained 27
marks out of 50. Since her allegation
was that all the students including herself copied but she and her group were
discriminated, the answer sheets of the complainant and Ms. Nikita Bajaj who,
according to her, was in her group while copying, were compared. It was found that the answers written by the
both of them were similar and marks obtained were also same i.e. 27. It was almost apparent that they had written
the same answers.
4. The complainant could
not give the names of other students in the group as she did not know who was sitting
where. However, she stated that as the
examination was conducted under the surveillance of CCTV Camera, its footage
should be examined. By doing so, it
could be ascertained whether she and her group were given less marks for the
same answer. She also alleged that people in the college / university taunted
her and pointed to her being dyslexic. If she was treated like normal students,
she would have performed better.
5. It was observed that
it was for the University / concerned college to investigate the issue of
cheating, this Court would limit itself to ascertain whether the complainant was failed intentionally and discriminated on
the ground of her disability.
6. Ms. Shikha Agarwal,
Incharge, Result(IV), Assistant Registrar, GGS Indraprastha University produced
the answer sheets of external paper (Code AP412), Town Planning examination
held in May 2017 in respect of 291 candidates. She submitted that the
complainant got 25 marks out of 75 as per the result. She further submitted that each answer sheet
was coded and examiner could not have known the name of the any student while
checking it. Hence there could not be possibility of discrimination against the
complainant. The representatives of the
University stated that they were not aware whether the CCTV recording of the
examination was done or not. However, if
the same was done, it may have been done by the concerned examination centre
i.e. New Delhi Institute of Management, 61 Tugalakabad Institutional Area, Near Batra Hospital, New Delhi-62.
7. After hearing the
parties were directed as under:-
(i)
“Respondent University shall ascertain
whether the CCTV recording of the internal and external examination was done.
If so, the same be procured and examined whether there were instances of mass
cheating as alleged by the complainant and
whether the complainant was given less marks than other students who had
written similar answers. This be done by
a Committee of 03 subject teachers who will submit a report by 25.12.2017. A random
check will be carried out during the hearing.
(ii)
The CCTV footage be shared
with the complainant who will submit the list of candidates who were sitting in
the group alongwith her.
(iii)
The complainant who claimed
that she also has done some recordings, may produce the same to substantiate
her allegations on the next date of hearing.
(iv)
The answer sheets be retained
till disposal of this complaint and be produced on the next date of hearing on
30.12.2017”.
8. Assistant
Registrar & Incharge Result (1) vide letter dated 26.12.2017 informed that
New Delhi Institute of Management (External Examination) did not have any CCTV facility. And hence no CCTV
footage was available. Vastu Kala Academy where the complainant was admitted
(internal examination) informed that their CCTV cameras are of low resolution
and have no facility to preserve the data beyond a week. Hence the footage of the period of time
when the class test was conducted, was not available.
9. On the next date of
hearing on 05.01.2018, the complainant vide her email requested for rescheduling the hearing after
March, 2018 as she had to finish her internship of B. Arch. and the hearing was
scheduled on 04.04.2018.
10. During the hearing on 04.04.2018, the
representatives of the respondent informed that the complainant has already cleared
Town Planning exam and she was doing internship. Professor Shelly Srivastav also produced the
answer sheets in support of her contention that no discrimination was meted out
to the complainant. Rather there is
evidence of positive discrimination in favour of the complainant.
11. The complainant stated that she did not
receive the copies of the reply of the respondent, which were given to
her. She also did not have the video
clip referred to in para 4(iii) of the Record of Proceedings of hearing held on
22.11.2017. She however stated
that she had sent some video clips to the University through e-mail which she
tried to show during the hearing.
However, it did not open.
12. After hearing the parties, the complainant
was advised to concentrate on her studies as only three months were left to
complete B.Arch. Professor, Shelly
Srivastav assured of extending all possible support and reasonable
accommodation to the complainant during her studies. She was given the opportunity to submit her
comments, if any by 10.05.2018.
13. As comments were not received from the complainant, an email dated
24.05.2018 was sent to her to submit the same by 10.06.2018. Vide her email
dated 10.06.2018 she requested extension of 30 days to submit her comments.
14. Complainant was also contacted many times on
her given telephone but no communication have been received from her till date. In the
view of this, the complaint is disposed of.
15. Given under my hand and the seal of the
Court this 06th day of May
2019.
(T.D.Dhariyal)
State Commissioner for
Persons with Disabilities
No comments:
Post a Comment