Showing posts with label Education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Education. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 24, 2019

Sh. Ashwani Porwal Vs. Principal, Jindal Public School & Anr. | Case No. 815/1032/2019/03/3668-3670 | Dated:23.07.2019




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
Phone-011-23216002-04, Telefax: 011-23216005,
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 815/1032/2019/03/3668-3670                      Dated:23.07.2019

In the matter of:

Sh. Ashwani Porwal,
RZ- 6A/230, J-Block West Sagarpur,
New Delhi-110046.                                                     .....Complainant

Versus
The Principal,
Jindal Public School,
Dashrathpuri,
New Delhi-110045.                                             ........Respondent No.1

The Director,
Department of Education,
GNCT of Delhi,
Old Sectt., Delhi-110054.                            ......Respondent No.2

Date of hearing:        18.07.2019

Present:      Sh. Ashwani Porwal, Complainant.
                   Dr. Mukesh, DDE (IEB) for Respondent no. 2.

Order

The above named complainant, father of Master Ayush Porwal, a person with moderate intellectual disability with challenging behaviour vide his complaint dated 26.03.2019 submitted that his son is six years and 10 months of age.  He has been allotted Jindal Public School, Dashrathpuri under 3% reserved seats for children with disability.  He does not want to admit his son in the school as there is no special educator and related staff and equipment.  He also submitted that he spoke to the principal on 14.03.2019, who expressed apprehension that his son may harm other children in the school.   Therefore he would not send his son to that school.  He requested that his son may be admitted in some other regular school in nursery where he can study with children of nursery class and where there are facilities for teaching children with special needs (Autistic) like St. Marry Dwarka or Golden Jubilee, Suborto Park, New Delhi.  If it is not possible, he should be exempted from paying Rs. 4125/- to Tamanna Autism Centre where his son currently studies.

2.       The complaint was taken up under the provisions of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, hereinafter referred to as “Act” with the respondents vide notice dated 04.04.2019.

3.       Principal, Jindal Pubic School, Dashrathpuri, Dwarka vide his reply letter dated 06.04.2019 submitted as under:

“Sir,
In reply to the Show cause notice, it is submitted that the complaint dated 26.03.2019, is false, frivolous and based on concocted facts.  Sh. Ashwini Porwal has intentionally, deliberately and with ulterior motive, has alleged that Sh. Ashwini Porwal met the undersigned and the undersigned has discouraged Sh. Ashwini Porwal from admitting his child in Jindal Public School.  It is pertinent to mention that Sh. Ashwini Porwal has never met and/or approached the undersigned in respect to the admission of his ward or in connection to any other matter thereof.  As a matter of fact, his ward has allotted to Jindal Public School and the undersigned has always been ready and willing to adhere to the rules and regulations framed by the authorities.  In other words, the School has no issues whatsoever, in case, the said child is willing to take admission in our School.

Thanking you
Principal
Jindal Public School”

4.       Vide his rejoinder dated 15.04.2019, the complainant stated that he is rejecting the allotted school on his own due to unavailability of required resources.  He reiterated that his son should be admitted to one of the schools mentioned in his complaint where facilities like Tamanna Autism Centre are available or Directorate of Education should get the fee exempted at Tamanna Autism Centre. 

5.       In view of the rejoinder of the complainant it was decided to close the complainant.  However, the complainant vide his letter dated 21.05.2019 insisted that Directorate of Education ignored the requirement of his son and the alternative of allotting his son to some other school.  In view of this a hearing was scheduled on 07.06.2019.  The complainant reiterated his written submissions and added that before filing a complaint in this Court, he had submitted a representation to Dy. Director, Private School Branch, Directorate of Education on 25.03.2019.  The officer of the Private School Branch recorded on his representation that “Candidate shall be admitted as per guidelines issued vide Circular dated 27.02.2019” and marked it to S.O. (Jindal Public School).  As he did not want to admit his son to that school even then and as he was not sure about the safety and proper education of his child in that school, he did not submit the representation with the said remarks to the School.  

6.       Sh. Banne Singh, UDC who appeared on behalf of the Jindal Public School, submitted that two children with disabilities were allotted to the school by  DoE for admission in 1st standard for the academic year 2019-20.  The other child, Master Mohnish S/o Sh. Darshan Singh has been admitted and is attending classes regularly. Master Ayush Porwal has not yet reported for admission.  He further submitted that children with disabilities have been allotted to their school for the first time. Presently, the school does not have special educator and other facilities / equipments for teaching / learning of children with disabilities.  As per him, now that children with disabilities have started coming for admission, the school will make necessary arrangements like appointment of special educators.

7.       The Directorate of Education was directed to submit why the child with Autism was admitted to a school that did not have facilities for teaching such children and how teaching and learning of master Ayush Porwal would be ensured.  The Principal of the School was also directed to submit by 21.06.2019, the details of facilities that the school proposed to put in place to ensure that master Ayush Porwal and other children with disabilities are taught on equal basis with other children.  The matter was posted for hearing on 11.07.2019, which was rescheduled on 18.07.2019.
 
8.       Deputy Director of Education (IEB), District South West-B, Najafgarh, New Delhi vide letter dated 09.07.2019 submitted that—

          “As per RTE Act 2009 and guidelines issued by DOE, 25% seats are reserved for EWS/DG/CWSN category candidates in Private Recognized Unaided Schools.  Ayush Porwal s/o Ashwani Porwal was allotted Jindal Public School through Computerized Draw of lots conducted by DoE for EWS/DG including 3% for CWSN category candidates.  The school was allotted 25% seats under EWS/DG including 3% CWSN category wherein name of Ayush Porwal appeared in the allotted list of Jindal Public School.

          The school has stated that a notice from Disability Commission was received by them and Sh. Banne Singh, UDC of the school attended the hearing on 07.06.2019 in the Disability Commission wherein the complainant himself refused to get admitted his ward in the said school and submitted that since facilities needed for his child is not available at Jindal Public School, his ward may be retained at Tamana Autism Centre with free ship facility.

Under provision of 12 (1) (c) a school specified in sub clause (iii) and (iv) of clause(es) of section shall admit to the extent of at least twenty five percent of the strength for candidates under EWS/DG/CSN and Tamana Autism Centre is not specified in sub clause (iii) and (iv) of clause (n) of section (2). 

The complainant has requested for change of school but there is no provision for change of school once allotted under EWS/DG/CWSN category admission.  Further, school is ready to admit the child but parent of the child is not willing for the same.

Deputy Director of Education
District South West-B
Najafgarh, New Delhi-43”
9.       Deputy Director of Education (IEB) vide letter dated 10.07.2019 has submitted that—
“Master Ayush Porwal is a child with Mental retardation with features of Autism. He was allotted Jindal Public School, Dashrathpuri, Delhi through the online admission process for CWSN and the allotment of schools has been done through computerised system.  The unified system of admission of CWSN is being followed in compliance to the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi dated 03.04.2014 in WPC 1225/2014 titled as Pramod Arora Vs Hon’ble LG of Delhi and Ors.  Further, based on the judgment in the WPC 1225/2014 dated 21.02.2018 the Directorate of Education (DoE) has reserved 3% of seats under EWS/DG category in Private Un-aided Recognized Schools in Delhi for Children with disabilities with prior approval of the Hon’ble L.G. vide notification dated 23rd July 2018.
In this regard it is also submitted that the DoE has issued directions to all Private un-aided Recognized Schools to appoint Special Education Teachers and provide Barrier free Environment to Children with Disabilities vide order dated 19.02.2013.”
In addition to the above, the Section 16 of the Rights of Person with Disabilities Act, 2016 states that the appropriate Government and the local authorities shall endeavour that all educational institutions funded or recognized by them provide inclusive education to the children with disabilities.
In view of the above facts, all private un-aided recognized schools should provide appropriate inclusive education to children with disabilities as provided in Section 16 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
This issues with the prior approval of the Director (Education), GNCTD.

(Dr. MUKESH CHAND)
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION (IEB)”

10.     During the hearing on 19.07.2019, the complainant reiterated his submissions and added that it is not possible for him to produce any               evidence in support of his submission about the conversation between him and the Principal as the School does not allow mobile phone inside the company. 

11.     As the Principal/ his representative was not present and no compliance report had been received, the Principal of the school was contacted on telephone.  He informed that the school has appointed a Special Educator and the other child who is also with intellectual disability, is attending the school.  Since the father of the child does not want to admit his son in the school, he has no further comments to make.

12.     Section 16 of the Act, which mandatory, provides as under:
“The appropriate Government and the local authorities shall endeavour that all educational institutions funded or recognised by them provide inclusive education to the children with disabilities and towards that end shall—
(i)         admit them without discrimination and provide education and opportunities for sports and recreation activities equally with others;
(ii)        make building, campus and various facilities accessible;
(iii)       provide reasonable accommodation according to the individual’s requirements;
(iv)       provide necessary support individualised or otherwise in environments that maximise academic and social development consistent with the goal of full inclusion;
(v)        ensure that the education to persons who are blind or deaf or both is imparted in the most appropriate languages and modes and means of communication;
(vi)       detect specific learning disabilities in children at the earliest and take suitable pedagogical and other measures to overcome them;
(vii)      monitor participation, progress in terms of attainment levels and completion of education in respect of every student with disability;
(viii)     provide transportation facilities to the children with disabilities and also the attendant of the children with disabilities having high support needs.”

13.     In addition to providing inclusive education and the necessary facilities required for it as enumerated in Section 16 of the Act, Govt. of NCT of Delhi has reserved 3% seats for children with disabilities in recognized private schools. 

14.     It is a fact that all the private or government schools do not have the required facilities as envisaged in Section 16 of the Act for teaching and learning of children with various disabilities especially those with autism spectrum disorder, intellectual disability, learning disability, deafness and blindness, etc.  In the circumstances, the following recommendations are made:

i)        Directorate of Education should set a reasonable time frame, in the order of priority, in respect of all the schools for making them fully inclusive schools.  Until then, allocation of children with disabilities should be done based on mapping of availability of relevant facilities in the schools. 
ii)       While it may not be possible to accept the request of every parent to allocate the school of their choice, flexibility in accommodating the requests for the purpose of ensuring equitable quality education to a child with a particular disability should be adopted subject to reasonable constraints like availability of seats.  Provision for such accommodation should be incorporated in the procedure for draw of lots.
iii)      The recommendation for admission to a grade/class should also take care of the existing provision for relaxation in upper age limit upto 9 years in respect of children with disabilities.

15.     In view of the assurance by the school and the instructions of the Directorate of Education and the mandatory nature of the provisions of Section 16 of the Act, complainant should admit his son to the allotted school and the school should provide the necessary teaching and learning facilities.  It goes without saying that Director of Education would have an appropriate mechanism to monitor provisions in the school and proper implementation.  As regards, the apprehension of the complainant about the security of his son in the school, it is the duty of the school to ensure safety and well being of all children.  I am sure, the Principal of the school shall assure the parents once the child is admitted and he becomes the student of that school. 

16.     This Court/complainant be informed of the action taken on the recommendation as required under Section 81 of the Act.

17.     The complaint is disposed of.

18.     Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 23nd day of July, 2019.     





           (T.D. Dhariyal)
                              State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities






Thursday, July 11, 2019

Ajaibir Singh Vs. The Principal, Amar Jyoti Institute of Physiotherapy | Case No. 994/1031/2019/06/3268-3269 | Dated:10.07.2019




In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
National Capital Territory of Delhi
25- D, Mata Sundri Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi.
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. 994/1031/2019/06/3268-3269                           Dated:10.07.2019

In the matter of:

Sh. Ajaibir Singh,
C-4-D/54-B, Janakpuri,
New Delhi-110058.
(E-mail-ajaibir.singh@in.ibm.com).                            ............. Complainant
                                          
Versus
The Principal,  
Amar Jyoti Institute of Physiotherapy,
(University of Delhi),
Karkardooma, Vikas Marg,
Delhi-110092.                                                              ……...…Respondent


Date of Hearing         08.07.2019

ORDER

The above named complainant, father of Master Mankaran Singh, a person with specific learning disability filed a complaint vide e-mail dated 18.06.2019 and submitted that Amar Jyoti Institute of Physiotherapy, affiliated to Delhi University has invited applications for Bachelor of Physiotherapy and earmarked one seat for persons with locomotor disability and not for persons with specific learning disability. In Delhi University and all other institutes, persons with all the 21 disabilities are allowed to appear for the examination under PH category.  Pt. Deendayal Upadhyaya National Institute for Persons with Physical Disabilities has already allowed Master Mankaran to appear in the examination under PH category on 16th June 2019. Amar Jyoti Institute of Physiotherapy is asking him to apply as a General Category candidate.  As per the email dated 18.06.2019 of Amar Jyoti Institute of Physiotherapy, the institute has OH (Orthopedically Handicapped) seat and hence the application of the applicant would be considered under the general category. 

2.       As per Section 32 of the Act, “all Government institutions of higher education and other higher educational institutions receiving aid from the Government shall reserve not less than five per cent seats for persons with benchmark disabilities”.

3.       The matter was taken up with the respondent vide Show Cause-cum- Hearing Notice dated 21.06.2019 under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Act 2016, hereinafter referred to as the Act directing the respondent why Master Mankaran Singh should not be allowed to apply for admission to Bachelor of Physiotherapy course under PH category against the reserved seat and submit an action taken report by 02.07.2019.  If the same was not done, it was decided to hold a hearing on 08.07.2019.

4.       The respondent vide letter received on 26.06.2019 submitted as under:-

“This letter is in response to the show cause cum hearing notice, Case No – 994/1031/2019/06, dated 21/06/2019.  The Amar Jyoti Institute of Physiotherapy (University of Delhi) wishes to place on record that Mr. Mankaran Singh s/o Mr. Ajaibir Singh, resident of C-4D/54-B, Janakpuri, New Delhi 110058 applied for admission to the Bachelor of Physiotherapy course for the year 2019-20 (reference no. is BPT/050/19).  Our point-wise response is as follows:
1.    The Amar Jyoti Institute of Physiotherapy (University of Delhi) under the aegis of Amar Jyoti Charitable Trust is a self-financed college that does not receive any funding from the University/UGC/ Government.
2.    The management of the Amar Jyoti Charitable Trust (AJCT) resolved to introduce one (1) seat specifically under the OH category at the Amar Jyoti Institute of Physiotherapy (AJIPT) in alignment with the core objectives of the Trust.  The eligibility criteria for the reserved OH seat was setup by the management after due diligence, deliberation, consultation and consensus by the management.
3.    AJIPT has one (1) reserved seat specifically for an Orthopedically Handicapped (OH) individual since the academic year 2004-2005.  For the purposes of the OH reserved category, OH is defined as point #4 & 5 of the PWD Act (1995/ amend.1996) and RPWD Act, 2016. Candidates that qualify under this category fulfil criteria as described in our prospectus.  Please refer to a copy of the relevant sections of our prospectus (copy attached).
4.    The PWD Act 1995 (amend 1996) – based on the act, guidelines for evaluation of various disabilities and procedure for a certificate, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (notification and annexures June 2001) referred to orthopaedic disability as locomotor disability and defines it as disability of the bones, joints or muscles leading to substantial restriction of the movement of the limb or any form of cerebral palsy.
5.    More recently, the Rights of Person with Disabilities Act (RPWD Act – section 1 A) 2016, defines locomotor disability as a person’s inability to execute distinctive activities associated with movement of self and objects resulting from affliction of musculoskeletal or nervous system or both.  Further, it includes leprosy cured person, cerebral palsy, dwarfism, muscular dystrophy, acid attack victims. 
6.    As per our records, Mr. Mankaran Singh (s/o Mr. Ajaibir Singh) has not provided any supporting document of his candidacy for the Orthopedically Handicapped (OH) seat.  Thus, the Institute cannot consider the application under reserved category of OH.
7.    The same was informed to the applicant, Mr. Mankaran Singh vide email dated June, 18 2019.  A copy of email is attached for your ready reference.
8.    Moreover, we wish to clarify that the institute did not force the candidate for applying under general category (as described in the opening paragraph of the show cause notice – last sentence).  The office email to him (attached for ready reference) clearly stated that the application could be considered under general category, if the candidate so desired.
9.    With reference to point #4 of the show cause notice that references section 32 of the Act (RPWD 2016) – we wish to state that we are entirely a private, self-finance Institute and do not received any government/UGC/University funding.
However, the issue of reservation for the differently abled is of importance and will be taken up for discussion in the next governing body meeting of AJIPT.
AJIPT will be happy to provide any additional information that is required by your office.  Our contact information is as follows: 011 – 2375512, 22379827, email- info@ajipt.org.
Sincerely
Dr. Raju K. Parasher
Director/ Principal
Amar Jyoti Institute of Physiotherapy
University of Delhi”

5.       A copy of the reply submitted by the respondent was sent to the complainant vide e-mail dated 04.07.2019 for comments/rejoinder.  As he did not appear for hearing on 08.07.2019, he was contacted on telephone and was informed that since only the Government and other Institutions of higher education receiving aid from the Government are obligated to reserve seats for persons with disabilities and Amar Jyoti Institute of Physiotherapy is neither a Government Institution nor receiving any aid from the Government for conducting the course in question, the provision of section 32 of the Act would not be applicable to that institute. 

6.       It is however clarified that section 32 of the Act does not envisage reservation of seats for any particular category of disability(ies) unlike section 34 which provides for reservation of vacancies for specified categories of disabilities for which the posts are identified.  Hence even though Amar Jyoti Institute of Physiotherapy is not obligated under the Act to reserve seats for persons with disabilities, yet it has proactively made a provision for it, it will be in the fitness of things to keep the reserved seats, if any, open to all the categories of persons with disabilities considering the intent of section 32 of the Act..

7.       In light of the above, the complaint is disposed off.

8.       Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 10th day of July, 2019. 


           (T.D. Dhariyal)
                      State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities



Wednesday, May 8, 2019

Swati Babber Vs. Registrar, Guru Gobind Singh Intraprastha University | Case No. 8/1033/2017/10 /2135-2136 | Dated: 07.05.2019



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