Naman Verma vs Director, The Indian Institute of Technology Bombay and Others

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.3886 OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.24683 of 2018)

NAMAN VERMA Appellant

VERSUS

THE DIRECTOR, THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY BOMBAY & ORS. Respondents

O R D E R

1. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated

17.04.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in

Writ Petition No.6818 of 2013.

2. Claiming to be suffering from ‘learning disabilities’

known as “Dyscalculia”, the appellant preferred the

aforestated writ petition praying for following principal

relief:

“(a) this Hon’ble Court may please issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the Respondent to take the petitioner into course of Master Design in 2013 batch.”

3. Under the interim orders passed by the High Court, her Signature Not Verified

candidature was directed to be considered and the appellant was Digitally signed by Dr. Mukesh Nasa Date: 2022.05.14 15:17:09 IST Reason:

admitted to the course of Master in Design. 2

4. With the passage of time, the appellant completed the

course successfully.

5. However, when the writ petition was taken up for final

disposal, after considering various issues, the entitlement of

the appellant under the provisions of the Persons with

Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and

Full Participation) Act, 1995 (“1995 Act” for short) was not

accepted.

6. The High Court was then confronted with the issue as to

what would be the fate and what directions can be passed when

the appellant had completed the course under the interim

directions. While dealing with the issue, the High Court

observed as under:

“We are of the view that although the petitioner may be entitled to be declared successful in the course we are unable to grant her any further relief in this petition for want of necessary powers under Article 226 to declare the petitioner as having passed M Des program held by IDC.”

7. We have heard Mr. Anand Verma, learned Advocate in support

of the appeal, and Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional

Solicitor General for the respondent. 3

8. At the outset, it must be mentioned that 1995 Act now

stands replaced by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,

2016 (“2016 Act” for short).

9. It is submitted that considering the provisions of the

2016 Act in any event of the matter, the entitlement of the

appellant is certainly made out. We need not go into this

issue.

10. Though we affirm the view taken by the High Court on the

issues of law which came up for determination by the High

Court, considering the fact that the appellant has completed

the course, we are not persuaded to cancel her candidature so

as to put her qualification in jeopardy.

11. We, therefore, exercise our power under Article 142 of the

Constitution of India and declare that the appellant has

successfully completed the course of Master in Design and that

the qualification shall hold good for all practical purposes

hereafter.

12. However, at the cost of repetition we make it clear that

the judgment rendered by the High Court on questions of law is

affirmed and as and when the entitlement of the appellant under

the provisions of the 2016 Act is to be considered, the same

shall be considered purely in accordance with law. 4

13. The appropriate steps including handing over of the degree

and all other testimonials to the appellant shall be completed

within four weeks from today.

14. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of, with

no order as to costs.

............................J. (UDAY UMESH LALIT)

............................J. (S. RAVINDRA BHAT)

............................J. (SUDHANSHU DHULIA) New Delhi, May 11, 2022