Suo Motu Vs. Secretary, Deptt of Social Welfare | Case No. 611/1141/2018/11/2259-2260 | Dated:13.05.2019

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. 611/1141/2018/11/2259-2260                    Dated:13.05.2019

In the matter of:                              

Suo Motu

Versus

The Secretary

Department of Social Welfare

GLNS Complex, Delhi Gate

New Delhi-110002.                                               ......Respondent

ORDER

The Court of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Govt. of India forwarded a copy of the representation dated 02.10.2018 of Smt. Akanksha Michyari, Child Welfare Officer, Tara Homes for Children, New Delhi vide letter dated 13.11.2018.  Ms. Michyari submitted that 21 year old Sh. Vinay Gupta, a person with 61% cerebral palsy has very little family support and grew up in Tara Homes, where he was placed by the Child Welfare Committee in 2012.  Sh. Vinay also has a hole in his heart, a paralysed and crooked arm, a crooked leg and various cognitive problems.  He underwent many operations.  Now he can walk, use both arms to some extent and has a functioning heart.  His IQ is 72.  He has no family support and is not able to live on his own.   She further submitted that as Sh. Vinay had turned 18 years in 2016 and as Tara Homes is registered under the Juvenile Justice Act, it can accommodate children till the age of 18 years only. 

2.       Tara Homes approached Muskaan which is implementing the GHARAUNDA scheme of National Trust for the Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities at MPCC, Dera Complex where Sh. Vinay could spend his entire life.  National Trust also directed Muskaan to admit Sh. Vinay under the GHARAUNDA Scheme. After all the documents were completed, Muskaan informed that he could not be admitted in Dera as the lease of MPCC for Dera Complex had expired in June 2017.   

3.       CWC also directed Tara Homes to contact Chief Commissioner for persons with disabilities and the organization also requested Secretary, Department of Disability Affairs.   Despite all these efforts, they were not able to find any place for Sh. Vinay to stay in Delhi. 

4.       While forwarding the representation to this Court, Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities advised Tara Homes to pursue the matter with this Court. 

5.       The representatives of Tara Homes appeared before me on 17.11.2018 and informed that Sh. Vinay and his elder sister were abandoned by their father and there was no one to take their care.  His sister is working with an NGO and is also pursuing her studies. She has been appointed legal guardian of Sh. Vinay Gupta under the National Trust Act. 

6.       This Court requested Department of Social Welfare, Govt. of NCT of Delhi to provide suitable Home for Sh. Vinay Gupta as he needed a permanent place to stay and not a school vide letter dated 20.12.2018.  Simultaneously, National Trust and some other organizations were also contacted if some arrangement could be made for the stay and care of Sh. Vinay.  But there is no facility in the Govt. Sector or in any NGO where Sh. Vinay could stay in NCT of Delhi or NCR.  Finally Vatsalya Gram, Mathura, Vrandavan Road agreed to admit Sh. Vinay.  Tara Homes were accordingly informed and advised to admit him there vide letter dated 04.01.2019. 

7.       Vide email dated 29.03.2019, Ms. Basanti K. Roublin, Program Manager, Tara Homes informed that Sh. Vinay Gupta has been admitted to Vatsalya Gram, Mathura on 26.03.2019 where all his needs were being met and his dignity preserved.  This Court also contacted his sister Ms. Sakshi who is working in an NGO and also studying. 

8.       Another case of a person with disability (Sh. Pappu) who has lost his both legs and one arm and is without proper shelter and family support except his ailing 80 year old mother living in Rithala, was also brought to the notice of the State Commissioner on 09.04.2019 by two students of MSW in Delhi University.  Although efforts were made by Social Welfare Department to accommodate him in Cheshire Home Okhla, Delhi yet the students informed that Sh. Pappu and his mother were not prepared to relocate to Okhla.  Many other persons with disabilities who have no family/ community support also stay in night shelters, near temples, under the flyovers, pavements, etc.   

9.       As Sh. Vinay Gupta was admitted to Vatsalya Gram on the advice and the recommendation of this Court, it was considered appropriate to visit and see his condition, the arrangements for his stay, care, skill training etc. and overall development before disposing of the case and making any recommendations. 

10.     During my visit to Vatsalya Gram, I found excellent facilities and arrangements for stay, education, skill training, care and overall development of abandoned children and adults including persons with disabilities.  The organisation has schools, a rehab centre, skill training facility, etc. within the campus.  Those who wish to go for higher education can do so and it is funded by the organization or sponsored by donors.  These residents, majority of whom are girls and women, are kept in a family environment.

11.     It is the responsibility of the state under Article 41 of the Constitution to make effective provision for securing the right to public assistance in case of disablement.  Public assistance in such cases is essential for a life with dignity.  Such assistance for stay, care, education and other support systems should be available in NCT of Delhi itself for residents with disabilities of Delhi who are abandoned and have no family or community support.  It is not a happy situation to send such persons to other states. 

12.     Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that  “the right to life enshrined in Article 21 cannot be restricted to mere animal existence.   It means something much more than just physical survival.”  Its reflection is clearly visible  in  the  provisions  made  under Section 24 of the  Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (the Act)  on Social Security  which requires  the  appropriate  Govt. to formulate necessary schemes and programmes to  safeguard and promote the rights of persons with disabilities for  adequate standard of  living  to enable  them  to live independently  or  in  the  community.  It mandates  that  the quantum of assistance  to  persons  with disabilities  shall be  at  least  25% higher than the similar schemes  applicable to others. Sub Section (3) (b) of Section 24 of the Act  specifically  requires that  the  social  security schemes shall provide for “facilities for persons including  children with disabilities who have no family or have been abandoned or without shelter or livelihood.”

13.     In view of the provisions in the Constitution and the Act, proper facilities catering for food, shelter, care, education/skill training, health and rehab facilities of reasonable standard must be developed and promoted by the Govt of NCT of Delhi to ensure that every abandoned person with disability who has no family and place to stay in the community is provided all these facilities and a reasonable standard of living which are essential to ensure his /her right to life.

14.     Such facilities can be developed initially on a smaller scale by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi and can be run jointly with some good NGOs working in the social sector having relevant experience.  It will also mitigate the problem of begging by such persons considerably, if not finish it.

15.     In light of the above, following recommendations are made:

               (i)                 Create a facility for food, stay, care, education, skill training and rehabilitation of abandoned persons with disabilities in Delhi to ensure that they live a life of dignity within a period of one year from the date of receipt of this order.

              (ii)                 The Homes for children/abandoned persons being run by Govt. of NCT of Delhi or NGOs in Delhi should be asked to ensure admission of children with disabilities and provide for support systems and the facilities necessary for them. This should be made one of the mandatory conditions for registration and permission to run such Homes in NCT of Delhi in order to promote and ensure inclusiveness.

16.     Given under my hand and seal of the Court this 13^th day of May, 2019.

(T.D. Dhariyal)

State Commissioner for Person with Disabilities

Copy to:

1.        Secretary, Department of Women and Child Development, Government of NCT of Delhi, 1, Canning Lane (Pandit Ravi Shankar Shukla Lane), Near Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan Bus Stop, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi - 110 001.      

Suo Motu Vs. DDA & SDMC |Case No. 679/1101/2019/01/2242-2243 | Dated: 10.05.2019

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)

1.    Case No. 679/1101/2019/01/2242-2243                    Dated: 10.05.2019

(Regarding inaccessibility of Markets in Dwarka)

 

In the matter of:

SUO-MOTU

Versus

The Vice Chairman

DDA, A-Block, 1st Floor,

Vikas Sadan, Near INA Market

New Delhi-110023                                                      .......Respondent No.1

The Commissioner                                               

South Delhi Municipal Corporation              

9th Floor, Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre                         

JLN Marg,                                                  

New Delhi -110002.                                                   ........Respondent No.2

2.    Case No. 593/1101/2018/11/                                              

(Reg. Inaccessibility of Manish Twin Plaza Market)

 

In the matter of:

Dr. Nitesh Tripathi,

H.No. 8, B-Block,

Swami Vivekanand Marg,

Sant Nagar, Burari,

Delhi-110084.                                                                   …..Complainant

Versus

The Vice Chairman

DDA, A-Block, 1st Floor,

Vikas Sadan, Near INA Market

New Delhi-110023                                                     .......Respondent No.1

The Commissioner                                               

South Delhi Municipal Corporation              

9th Floor, Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre                         

JLN Marg,                                                  

New Delhi -110002.                                              ........Respondent No.2

Date of hearing:  03.5.2019

Present:   Sh. Raghav Alok, Advocate and Sh. Narsi Gupa, Consultant on behalf of Respondent No. 1.

ORDER

1.    Case No. 679/1101/2019/01                             

(Regarding inaccessibility of Markets in Dwarka)

1.     State Commissioner had also taken cognizance of inaccessible built environment and transport in NCT of Delhi in Suo-motu case No. 4/1665/2017-Wel/CD and taken up with the concerned authorities on 19.07.2017.  DDA, among other respondents in that case had submitted that the built environment under their jurisdiction would be made accessible and had also drawn up action plans for the purpose.  Dwarka markets are neither included in the action plan of DDA nor SDMC.

2.      State Commissioner visited various markets and other facilities around NCT of  Delhi including a few markets in Dwarka on 05.01.2019 and found that none of the shops/service provider’s premises in those markets was accessible particularly for wheel chair users. There were no reserved parking, accessible toilets, foot paths, etc. The matter was therefore taken up with DDA and SDMC under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 hereinafter refer to as the Act, vide Show-Cause-Cum Hearing Notice dated 25.01.2019 and the matter was scheduled for hearing on 12.02.2019. 

 

Case No. 593/1101/2018/11

(Reg. Inaccessibility of Manish Twin Plaza Market)

3.      Dr. Nitesh Tripathi, a person with 65% locomotor disability vide his email dated 15.11.2018 submitted that on 14.11.2018, he visited Manish Twin Plaza Market Complex, Sector-4, Dwarka, New Delhi.  He submitted that the floors were slippery without any tactile tiles, there were no signages and other accessibility adaptations like  Braille enabled sign boards and AV announcement system, reserved parking space for persons with disabilities,  drinking water facility etc.  Flower pots and decorative stuff blocked the walking area.  The roads and footpaths were damaged.  He also enclosed photographs that indicated inaccessibility of various facilities. The complainant requested that the respondent should be made aware about the accessibility needs of persons with disabilities and be sensitised and made accountable.   There should be an advisory monitoring committee with adequate representation of all the stake holders particularly persons with disabilities.

4.      The complaint was forwarded to the SDMC vide email dated 22.11.2018 followed by a reminder dated 26.12.2018.  As there was no response, a hearing was scheduled on 12.02.2019.  The Nodal Officer- Cum-Chief Engineer, SDMC vide letter dated 07.02.2019 directed the concerned Executive Engineers to remove all the short-comings and to attend the hearing on 12.02.2019 alongwith the action taken report. 

5.      Three more cases (Case No.691/1101/2019/01, Case No. 670/1101/2019/01 and Case No. 713/1101/2019/01) involving private buildings were also clubbed with this suo-motu case.  Based on the action taken by the concerned owners of the said private buildings/ service providers, they have been disposed of by separate orders.

6.      The above remaining two cases are being disposed of by this common order.  On 12.02.2019, representatives of SDMC informed that none of the markets in various sectors of Dwarka has been handed over by DDA to SDMC.   None appeared on behalf of DDA.  On 25.03.2019 Sh. Raghav Alok, Panel Lawyer, who appeared on behalf of DDA submitted that he received the case file only on 23.03.2019  and sought 15 days time for filing a detailed reply. 

7.      Vide RoP dated 27.03.2019, DDA was directed to provide the following information:

(i)      Process / scheme under which various markets in Dwarka came up;

(ii)      The terms and conditions of allotment of land and for construction of shopping complexes from where various facilities and services would be provided;

(iii)     The requirement of complying with the building bye-laws, national building code;

(iv)    Regulatory / monitoring authority for ensuring compliance  with the statutory bye-laws etc.

(v)     Name and contact details of the original allottees and the current owners / lease holders.

8.      On the next date of hearing on 03.05.2019, Sh. Raghav Alok, Counsel for DDA submitted that necessary directions have been issued at the level of Chief Engineer, Dwarka, Superintending Engineer/CC-2 and also by the concerned Executive Engineers to their subordinates so that all the footpaths/ toilets/ community halls of Dwarka Zone shall be made accessible for persons with disabilities.  He also submitted an assurance signed by Executive Engineer, SWD/DDA which is marked to SE/CC-2/DDA, CE(Dwarka), DDA that the work of making accessible all the foot paths/ toilets/community halls etc. of Dwarka Zone shall be completed within two years, if feasible.

9.      On being pointed out that the suo-motu case is about the markets in Dwarka which comprises shops toilets, footpaths etc.  and the offices from where service providers are providing services, Sh. Raghav Alok  clarified that there has been some typing error due to which ‘buildings / markets’ have not been  typed in the assurance dated 16.04.2019.  He produced an internal communication/ undertaking dated 04.04.2019 circulated by SE(HQ)DWK/DDA to SE/CC-@/DDA, SE/CC-13/DDA, SE/CC-17/DDA, Chief Engineer(Dwarka) and all the EEs which  mentions “community hall/ buildings/ markets/ foot path/ toilets roads etc. Chief Engineer, Dwarka vide letter no. CE (DWK) 12(16)19/Court case/1043 dated 03.05.2019 also issued a corrigendum to the effect that the undertaking dated 04.04.2019 has been given after discussion with the Panel Lawyer and as directed by the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities.

10.    As regards the information sought vide Para 4 of the RoP dated 27.03.2019 reproduced in Para 7 above,  Sh. Raghav Alok submitted  a copy of the internal noting along with the terms and conditions of E-Auction for allotment of built up shops/ offices / kiosks on free hold basis under the Delhi Development Authority (Management Disposal of Housing Estate) Regulations, 1968.   The said papers do not answer the questions raised and information sought by this Court vide RoP dated 27.03.2019.

11.    However, in view of the internal directions issued to the concerned officers of DDA, the assurance / undertaking given by them and the fact that obtaining the information from the various Departments/ wings of DDA would be a long drawn process, it is considered expedient to dispose of these cases.

12.    Section 40 of the Act provides for formulating the rules to lay down the standards of accessible physical environment etc for persons with disabilities.

13.    Rule 15 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 (the Rules) notified by Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities) vide notification dated 15.6.2017, provides that the standard for public buildings as specified in the ‘Harmonised Guidelines and Space Standards for Barrier free Built Environment for Persons with Disabilities and Elderly Persons’ as issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development in 2016, shall be complied by every establishment.

14.    Section 45 and Section 46 of the Act mandate that all existing public buildings and the services shall be made accessible for persons with disabilities within a period of 5 years (15^th June, 2022) and 2 years (15^th June, 2019) respectively.

15.    As per section 2(w) of the Act, “public building” means a Government or private building, used or accessed by the public at large, including a building used for educational or vocational purposes, workplace, commercial activities, public utilities, religious, cultural, leisure or recreational activities, medical or health services, law enforcement agencies, reformatories or judicial foras, railway stations or platforms, roadways bus stands or terminus, airports or waterways.

16.    Section 2(x) of the Act defines “public facilities and services” as all forms of delivery of services to the public at large, including housing, educational and vocational trainings, employment and career advancement, shopping or marketing, religious, cultural, leisure or recreational, medical, health and rehabilitation, banking, finance and insurance, communication, postal and information, access to justice, public utilities, transportation.

17.    Section 89 of the Act also provides for punishment for contravention of the provisions of the Act or rules or regulations made there under which may extend to Rs. 5 lakh.

18.    As the Govt. as well as private establishments  are mandated to make “public buildings” and  “public facilities  and services” accessible within  the specified dates and non-compliance is punishable, it is important that the original allottees / lease holders / current  occupiers of the market / plots on which the buildings / markets/ offices have been constructed and from where services are being provided to the public  are informed about the provisions of the Act and directed to make their premises / facilities / services accessible to persons with disabilities within the prescribed time frame. 

19.    In the light of the above, following recommendations are made:

(i)         DDA should submit an action plan indicating the dates by which various markets under its control in Dwarka shall be made accessible to persons with disabilities in accordance with the harmonised guidelines issued by the Ministry of Urban Development, Govt. of India referred to above.  The action plan  should also include accessibility of foot paths corridors, drinking water facility, toilets if any.

(ii)         A quarterly progress report as on 30^th June, 2019 onwards till the work is completed,  shall be submitted by 10^th July, 2019,  10^th October, 2019 and so on. 

(iii)   DDA should issue a circular for providing services, facilities  in accordance with the rules on accessibility to the owners, lease holders, occupiers who are providing facilities and services from their premises  to the public  by 15 June, 2019,  failing which appropriate action should be initiated against the contraveners of the provisions of the  Act and the  Rules.

(iv)        DDA shall make available the list containing names/addresses/contact details of the original allottees and the owners / lease holders / current occupiers to this Court before 15^th June, 2019.

20.    An Action Taken Report on the above mentioned recommendations be submitted to this Court within three months from the date of receipt of this order as required under Section 81 of the Act.

21.    Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 10^th  day of May, 2019.     

( T.D. Dhariyal )

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Copy to:

1.         The Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department and Chairman, Monitoring Committee,   9^th  & 10^th  Level, C-Wing, Delhi Sectt., I.P Estate, New Delh-110002 for information and necessary action.

2.         The Secretary, Social Welfare Deptt., GLNS Complex, Delhi Gate, Delhi-110002. 

Suo Motu Vs. Dean Maulana Azad Medical College | Case No. 802/1011/2019/03/2203-2204 | Dated: 09.05.2019

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-110002

Phone: 011-23216003-04, 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. 802/1011/2019/03/2203-2204                          Dated: 09.05.2019

In the matter of:

Suo-Motu

Versus

Dean

Maulana Azad Medical College

GNCT of Delhi

2-Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg

New Delhi-110002                                            ...............Respondent

Date of Hearing:    08.05.2019

ORDER 

All Pr. Secretaries/ Spl. Secretaries/ Additional Secretaries/ HoDs, Govt. of NCT of Delhi were requested vide letter No. 5/1593/2017-Wel/CD/155-316 dated 05.05.2017 to provide information relating to appointment of persons with disabilities against reserved vacancies in a prescribed format in respect of their Departments and all the establishments such as Offices/Organisations/ Institutions etc. under their control by 31.05.2017.

2.       As per the Department of Personnel & Training OM No. 30612/39/2014-Estt (Res.) dated 22-25^th May, 2015 and directions of Supreme Court  of India, a special recruitment drive for filling up backlog of reserved vacancies was to be conducted.

3.       In Column 6 of the format enclosed with letter dated 01.06.2017 of the respondent, no vacancies were filled in Group ‘A’, Group ‘B’ and Group ‘C’ but in Column 7, appointment of persons with disabilities was indicated.  It was also observed that against 80 vacancies filled in Group ‘D’ posts, only one person with disability was appointed and the backlog was not indicated.

4.  The respondent was advised to clarify the position alongwith relevant documents in a hearing scheduled on 15.04.2019.  Vide letter dated 13.04.2019, the respondent clarified that recruitment to Group ‘A’ posts comprising Doctors/Faculty is done by Ministry of Health & Family Welfare and lone post of Deputy Director is filled by the Services Department.  Recruitment to the Group ‘B’ and ‘C’ posts is also done by the Services Department.  Therefore ‘not applicable’ has been mentioned in column 6 meant for indicating the number of vacancies filled since 1996 and hence backlog of reserved vacancies is not applicable. 

5.       It was further submitted that the appointment to Group ‘D’ posts has been discontinued since 2006 after implementation of the recommendation of 6^th Pay Commission.  The representatives of the respondent however did not readily have the information whether the vacancies of MTS will now be filled up by MAMC or will be communicated to Services Department for filling up.  They were advised that if the vacancies are to be filled by MAMC, special recruitment drive should be conducted and if the vacancies are to be intimated to Services Department, they should be requested to ensure that reservation for persons with disabilities is provided against those vacancies. 

6.       Vide letter dated 30.04.2019, Sh. Brijesh Sharma, Head of Office, MAMC informed that Services Department has been informed that as the Group ‘D’ posts have been converted into Group ‘C’ and all appointments to Group ‘C’ posts are done by Services Department/ Health & Family Welfare Department, while filling up the post of MTS the directions of this court should be complied with. 

7.       It is observed from the information furnished by the respondent as on 31.03.2017 that 80 vacancies in Group ‘D’ posts were filled up.  Out of them one person with locomotor disability was appointed.  Thus, there is a backlog of one vacancy each for persons with blindness and low vision and one for persons with hearing impairment.  In view of this, the respondent is directed to intimate Services Department to reserve and fill up the backlog of one vacancy each by appointment of persons with blindness/ low vision and hearing impairment respectively whenever next recruitment takes place.

8.       Action taken be intimated to this court within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order as required under Section 81 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act.

9.       The complaint is disposed of with the above directions.

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

  

                                                                   (T.D. Dhariyal)

                               State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

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 (4^th 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 06^th day of May  2019.

(T.D.Dhariyal)

                                State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities