# Ms. Saumya Singh v. U.O.I. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 416
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-12
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 22991 of 2021
- **Bench:** Abdul Moin
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ms-saumya-singh-v-u-o-i-ors-48539
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

(A) Civil Law - Rights of Persons with
Disabilities - Sympathetic consideration -
The Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Act,
2016
-
Section
2
(s),2
(zc),16(vii),56,57,58,59 - "Psychosis" -
not defined under the Act, 2016 - a mental
disorder in which there is severe loss of
contact
with
reality,
evidenced
by
delusions,
hallucinations,
disorganized
speech patterns, and bizarre or catatonic
behaviors. (Para -17)

Petitioner (student of M.A English) could not join
third semester and appear in third semester
examinations on account of her medical
condition (Psychosis ) - admission of petitioner
stood cancelled on account of Clause 15 (b) of
the Ordinance - request of petitioner for her reregistration rejected by University - ground - no
provision for re-registration of any semester of
any course - perusal of ordinance prima facie
indicate - specific provision in Clause 15 (c) -
provides that students whose admission is
cancelled , are required to re-register for the
programme - re-registration can be permitted
subject to certain conditions - respondents while
issuing impugned order have not considered
Clause 15 (c) of the ordinance. (Para -3)

HELD:-
Petitioner
to
submit
a
fresh
representation indicating her grievance along
with certified copy of order to the Chancellor of
the University, i.e respondent no. 2. The
Chancellor of the University shall consider the
re-registration of petitioner and her continuance
in M.A (English) course keeping in view the
observations made, sympathetically. (Para -24 )

Writ petition disposed of. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

416 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
children, relatives or any other person then
the purpose of the Act, 2007 would be
frustrated and rather this would be a denial
of right to appeal to the person aggrieved.

42. Thus, this Court is also in
agreement with the aforesaid orders and
find that the right to appeal to any affected
parties is available so far as the purpose of
the Act, 2007 is concerned.

43. Therefore, this writ petition is
hereby partly allowed. The order dated
24.02.2020 passed by respondent no.1 is set
aside. The liberty is granted to the
petitioners to file an appeal before the
Appellate Court under Section 16 of the
Act, 2007 afresh, within a period of 15
days from the date of this order and if such
an appeal is filed, the Appellate Authority
shall take decision on appeal within a
further period of four months after calling
objections and affording an opportunity of
hearing to the parties concerned.

44. No order as to costs.
----------
(2022)05ILR A416
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

Writ C No. 22991 of 2021

Ms. Saumya Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Surya Prakash Singh, Anupama Bhadauria,
Ashok Kumar Yadava, Shalini Upadhyaya

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G., Hemant Kumar Pandey

(A) Civil Law - Rights of Persons with
Disabilities - Sympathetic consideration -
The Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Act,
2016
-
Section
2
(s),2
(zc),16(vii),56,57,58,59 - "Psychosis" -
not defined under the Act, 2016 - a mental
disorder in which there is severe loss of
contact
with
reality,
evidenced
by
delusions,
hallucinations,
disorganized
speech patterns, and bizarre or catatonic
behaviors. (Para -17)

Petitioner (student of M.A English) could not join
third semester and appear in third semester
examinations on account of her medical
condition (Psychosis ) - admission of petitioner
stood cancelled on account of Clause 15 (b) of
the Ordinance - request of petitioner for her reregistration rejected by University - ground - no
provision for re-registration of any semester of
any course - perusal of ordinance prima facie
indicate - specific provision in Clause 15 (c) -
provides that students whose admission is
cancelled , are required to re-register for the
programme - re-registration can be permitted
subject to certain conditions - respondents while
issuing impugned order have not considered
Clause 15 (c) of the ordinance. (Para -3)

HELD:-
Petitioner
to
submit
a
fresh
representation indicating her grievance along
with certified copy of order to the Chancellor of
the University, i.e respondent no. 2. The
Chancellor of the University shall consider the
re-registration of petitioner and her continuance
in M.A (English) course keeping in view the
observations made, sympathetically. (Para -24 )

Writ petition disposed of. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. In Re Contagion of Covid 19 Virus in Children
Protection Homes , 2021 SCC Online SC 3178

2. Court on its own motion Vs U.O.I. & ors. ,
(2021) SCC Online Bom 790

3. Rahul Sharma Vs St. of Guj. , 2020 SCC
Online Guj. 2641
5 All. Ms. Saumya Singh Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
417
(Delivered by Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J.)

1. Heard Ms. Anupama Bhadauria,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents no. 3 to 5.

2. Instant petition has been filed
praying for the following main reliefs:-

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of Certioari or any other Writ,
order or direction of like nature setting
aside the impugned order dated 23.08.2021
issued by the Respondent as contained in
Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus or any
other writ, order or direction of like nature
directing the Respondent to permit the
petitioner to join the IIIrd Semester of the
M.A English Programme along with Batch
of 2020-22 at Lucknow campus, which is
running since 08.09.2021.

3. The facts of the case have already
been indicated by this Court while passing
a detailed order on 05.04.2022 which for
the sake of convenience is reproduced
below:-

1.Heard.

2. Instant petition has been filed
challenging the order dated 23.08.2021
passed
by
the
respondent-University
whereby the petitioner has been informed
that as per the University ordinance there
is no provision for re-registration of any
semester of any course.

3. The case set forth by the
petitioner is that she had taken admission
in the M.A (English) course in the session
2019-21. However, on account of the
COVID-19 pandemic which came in India
in the year 2020 the petitioner suffered
from Psychosis which has resulted in she
being unable to appear for the examination
in the third semester which was held from
August, 2020 to December, 2020. In March,
2021 the petitioner applied to join the third
semester of M.A (English) programme
which has been turned down by the
impugned order dated 23.08.2021, a copy
of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition
by indicating that as per the University
ordinance there is no provision of reregistration of any semester of any course.

4. Learned counsel for the
petitioner contends that once as per her
medical condition which is duly certified by
the doctor concerned she could not appear
in the third semester, as such there cannot
be any reason for not permitting the
petitioner to join the third semester and
appear for the examinations. In this regard,
he has placed reliance on Clause XV (c) of
the Ordinances Governing Academic and
Administrative Matters (Based on UGC
Model Ordinances-2012) of the English
and
Foreign
Languages
University,
Hyderabad which specifically provides that
the students whose admission is cancelled
are
required
to
re-register
for
the
programme which can be permitted subject
to certain conditions.

5. Learned counsel for the
petitioner contends that once there is
specific provision under the ordinance for
re-registration of the students and her
inability to join the third semester and
appear in the third semester examination
was on account of circumstances beyond
her control rather on account of her
medical
conditions
which
duly
finds
support from the medical certificate issued
by the competent doctor, as such the
respondent-University be directed to reregister her for the third semester and to
permit her to join the third semester and
appear in the said examination.
418 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

6. On the other hand, Sri Hemant
Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing
for the University contends that as per
Clause 15 (b) of the Ordinance, students
who fail in two (50%) courses of a semester
will not be promoted to the next semester
and their admission stands cancelled.
Placing
reliance
on
the
averments
contained in the counter affidavit, Sri
Pandey argues that once admittedly the
petitioner did not appear in the third
semester
examinations
which
were
conducted from August, 2020 to December,
2020 and thereafter the students who did
not appear in the said examination were
also given a chance to appear again in the
examination in January, 2021 and the
petitioner not having appeared and taking
the said chance, her admission has been
cancelled and there would not be any
occasion for her re-registration.

7. Having heard the learned
counsel appearing for the contesting
parties and having perused the records
what is prima facie apparent is that the
petitioner could not join the third semester
and
appear
in
the
third
semester
examinations on account of her medical
condition. The admission of the petitioner
stood cancelled on account of Clause 15
(b) of the Ordinance. The request of the
petitioner for her re-registration has also
been rejected by the University through the
impugned order dated 23.08.2021 on the
ground that there is no provision for reregistration of any semester of any course.
However, a perusal of the ordinance would
prima facie indicate that there is specific
provision in Clause 15 (c) which provides
that the students whose admission is
cancelled, are required to re-register for
the programme and the re-registration can
be permitted subject to certain conditions.
It is thus apparent that the respondents
while issuing the impugned order have not
considered Clause 15 (c) of the ordinance.

8. Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey,
learned
counsel
appearing
for
the
University prays for and is granted a
week's to seek instructions as to whether
the case of the petitioner can be considered
under Clause 15 (c) of the Ordinance.

9. As the matter pertains to a
student, list this case in the next week for
further hearing.

4. Subsequent to the order dated
05.04.2022, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey had
pointed out to the Court that this Court had
considered the provision of Clause 15 (b)
of the ordinance which pertains to M.A
distance education while for the petitioner
it is Clause VI (d) of Ordinance 10 of
Ordinances
Governing
Academic
and
Administrative
Matters
(hereinafter
referred to as "Ordinances") which is
applicable which in turn is governed by
Clause 10.7 of the 10th Ordinance. This
statement was recorded by this Court vide
order dated 12.04.2022 which for the sake
of convenience is reproduced below:-

"Heard.

At the very outset, Shri Hemant
Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing
for
the
University
contends
that
inadvertently on the previous date i.e. on
05.04.2022 he had argued the matter on the
basis of a wrong provision of the Ordinance
in as much as Clause XV (b) of the
Ordinance pertains to M.A. (English),
Distance Mode while the petitioner was a
student of regular mode two years (four
semester) course and hence the said clause
XV (b) of the Ordinance was not
applicable.

The
aforesaid
statement
is
recorded.
5 All. Ms. Saumya Singh Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
419

Shri Pandey contends that the
case of the petitioner is governed by clause
VI (d) of the Ordinance which does not
provide for any re-admission.

However in all fairness, Shri
Pandey submits that he may be granted two
weeks' time to seek instructions as to
whether any sympathetic consideration can
be extended to the petitioner by the
University so as to save the educational
career of the petitioner.

List this case in the week
commencing 02.05.2022."

5. Thereafter, the Court had required
learned counsel appearing for the respondents
to seek instructions as to whether any
sympathetic consideration can be extended
by the University to the petitioner and in
pursuance thereof, Sri Hemant Kumar
Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents no. 3 to 5 informs that as the
University is a five star rated institution, as
such, in case any relaxation is extended to the
petitioner, the same would result in dilution
of the academic standards of the University
and may also be cited as a precedent by other
students and accordingly, no sympathetic
consideration can be extended by the
University to the petitioner. Sri Pandey also
submits that considering Clause 10.7 of the
10th Ordinance, a student should not have a
backlog of more than two courses/ papers at
the beginning of any given semester and that
students who accumulate backlog of more
than two courses/papers at any point of time
will have to exit the programme. He contends
that as the petitioner was having a backlog of
all the papers, as such considering Clause
10.7 of 10th Ordinance, it is deemed that the
petitioner has exited from the programme.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel
for the petitioner contends that the
situation which rendered the petitioner
unable to appear in any of the semester
examination for the M.A IIIrd semester
was occasioned on
account of
the
unprecedented
COVID-19
pandemic
which was faced by both, the world at
large as well as India. She also contends
that a complete lock down had been
imposed in the country in March, 2020. It
is also contended that on account of the
COVID-19 pandemic and resultant stress,
the petitioner suffered from Psychosis and
was under continuous medical treatment
of the doctor concerned from 02.07.2020
till March, 2021 as would be apparent
from a perusal of the certificate issued by
the doctor, a copy of which has been filed
as annexure 7 to the writ petition. She thus
contends that even if something adverse is
contained
in
the Ordinance of
the
University
the
same
does
not
conceptualize the peculiar situation faced
by the students at large and the petitioner
in particular and in view of the peculiar
situation which prevailed during the
COVID-19 pandemic and the medical
condition of the petitioner duly certified
by the medical doctor, she is entitled for
sympathetic
consideration
by
the
University.

7. Placing reliance on Section 2 (s)
and 2 (zc) of the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred
to as "Act, 2016") along with Section 16
(vii) of the Act, 2016 and the Schedule,
learned counsel for the petitioner argues
that "Psychosis", which the petitioner was
suffering from, is indicated as a disability
under the provisions of the Act, 2016 and
the University ordinance, which are of a
date prior to the Act, 2016, could not have
obviously considered the Act, 2016 when
the Ordinance were framed in the year
2012 as the Act, 2016 itself has come in the
year 2016 and thus the provisions of the
420 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Act, 2016 which is a special act, are to be
read in the Ordinance also.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner
also argues that once the University
ordinance contain a specific provision for
the M.A (English) Distance Mode and the
students who are undergoing M.A (English)
Distance Mode are eligible for certain
relaxation, as such the said relaxation may
also be extended to the petitioner taking
into
consideration
the
aforesaid
circumstances.

9. Having heard the learned counsel
appearing for the contesting parties and
having perused the records what is apparent
is that the petitioner was a student of M.A
English for the Session 2019-21 who
regularly appeared in semesters I &II of her
course. The semester III examinations were
scheduled
between
August,
2020
to
December, 2020 but though the petitioner
wanted to participate in the same, she could
not participate on account of her medical
condition of "Psychosis" as certified by a
registered medical practitioner as per the
certificate annexed with the petition. As per
the said certificate, the treatment of the
petitioner was continuing even on the date of
issuance of the certificate i.e till March, 2021
meaning thereby that during the period the
examinations were scheduled, the petitioner
was suffering from "Psychosis".

10. Whether the Act, 2016 is
applicable on the medical condition of
the petitioner is to be seen initially by
the Court.

11. Section 2 (s) of the Act, 2016
reads as under:-

"person with disability" means
a person with long term physical,
mental,
intellectual
or
sensory
impairment which, in interaction with
barriers, hinders his full and effective
participation in society equally with
others".

12. Section 2 (zc) of the Act, 2016
reads as under:-

"specified disability" means
the disabilities as specified in the
Schedule"

13. Chapter X of the Act, 2016
provides as under:-

"56.
Guidelines
for
assessment of specified disabilities:-
The Central Government shall notify
guidelines for the purpose of assessing
the extent of specified disability in a
person.

57. Designation of certifying
authorities:-
(1)
The
appropriate
Government shall designate persons,
having
requisite
qualifications
and
experience, as certifying authorities,
who shall be competent to issue the
certificate
of
disability.(2)
The
appropriate
Government
shall
also
notify the jurisdiction within which and
the terms and conditions subject to
which, the certifying authority shall
perform its certification functions.

58. Procedure for certification:-
(1) Any person with specified disability,
may apply, in such manner as may be
prescribed by the Central Government,
to
a
certifying
authority
having
jurisdiction, for issuing of a certificate
of disability.

(2)
On
receipt
of
an
application under sub-section (1), the
certifying authority shall assess the
disability of the concerned person in
5 All. Ms. Saumya Singh Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
421
accordance with relevant guidelines
notified under section 56, and shall,
after such assessment, as the case may
be,--

(a) issue a certificate of disability
to such person, in such form as may be
prescribed by the Central Government;

(b) inform him in writing that he
has no specified disability.

(3) The certificate of disability
issued under this section shall be valid
across the country.

59. Appeal against a decision of
certifying
authority:-(1)
Any
person
aggrieved with decision of the certifying
authority,
may
appeal
against
such
decision, within such time and in such
manner as may be prescribed by the State
Government, to such appellate authority as
the State Government may designate for the
purpose. (2) On receipt of an appeal, the
appellate authority shall decide the appeal
in such manner as may be prescribed by the
State Government."

14. The schedule to the Act, 2016 so
far as it pertains to mental behavior
provides as under:-

"3. Mental behaviour,--

"mental
illness"
means
a
substantial disorder of thinking, mood,
perception, orientation or memory that
grossly
impairs
judgment,
behaviour,
capacity to recognise reality or ability to
meet the ordinary demands of life, but does
not include retardation which is a conditon
of arrested or incomplete development of
mind of a person, specially characterised
by subnormality of intelligence."

15. A persual of the aforesaid
provisions of the Act, 2016 would indicate
that "Psychosis" is not defined under the
Act, 2016.

16. For understanding the disease of
"Psychosis" with which the petitioner was
suffering, the Court has referred to the
meaning of "Psychosis" as given in Taber
Cyclopedic
Medical
Dictionary,
19th
Edition which read as under:-

"A mental disorder in which there
is severe loss of contact with reality,
evidenced by delusions, hallucinations,
disorganized speech patterns, and bizarre
or catatonic behavior. Psychotic disorders
are common features of schizophrenia,
bipolar disorders, and some affective
disorders. They can also result from
substance
abuse
(e.f.
the
use
of
hallucinogens), substance withdrawal (e.g
delirium tremens), or side effects of some
prescription drugs"

17. As per the definition, it is apparent
that "Psychosis" is a mental disorder in
which there is severe loss of contact with
reality,
evidenced
by
delusions,
hallucinations,
disorganized
speech
patterns, and bizarre or catatonic behaviors.

18. Section 2 (s) of the Act, 2016 only
defines a person with disability as a person
with long term physical/ mental or sensory
impairment which in interaction with
barriers, hinders his full and effective
participation in the society meaning thereby
that a person with disability would have to
have long term illness for the purpose to
come under the ambit of Act, 2016. From
the medical condition annexed by the
petitioner it can be seen that the petitioner
was not having any long term mental
impairment.
However,
it
was
an
impairment which precluded and restrained
her from appearing in the examination for
M.A IIIrd semester which was scheduled
from August, 2020 to December, 2020. The
said illness is said to have been occasioned
422 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
on
account
of
COVID-19
pandemic
situation.

19. The Courts in India including
Hon'ble Supreme Court have considered
the effect of COVID-19 pandemic situation
by issuing various directions from time to
time as would be apparent from a perusal
of the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of In Re Contagion of Covid 19
Virus in Children Protection Homes
reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 3178
wherein
the
Supreme
Court
was
considering the effect of Pandemic on the
children in protection homes.

20. Likewise the Bombay High
Court in the case of Court on its own
motion Vs. Union of India and Ors
reported in (2021) SCC Online Bom 790
has considered the effect of Pandemic
with regard to reimbursement of college
fees of the student who could not deposit
the same on account of Pandemic and
economic loss suffered during the said
period. The Division Bench of Gujrat
High Court in the case of Rahul Sharma
Vs. State of Gujrat reported in 2020
SCC Online Guj 2641 has considered
the modalities to be adopted for conduct
of University examination for academic
session 2019-20 which could not be held
on account of Pandemic.

21. Likewise, keeping in view the
COVID-19
pandemic
situation,
the
University Grant Commission issued
academic guidelines in July, 2021 of
Examination and Academic Calender
wherein it has been provided that in view
of the financial hardships being faced by
parents due to lockdowns and related
factors, a full refund of fees should be
made
on
account
of
cancellations/migrations of students up to
31.10.2021 as a special case in higher
education institutions.

22. Though, none of the aforesaid
judgments
or
Universities
Grant
Commission guidelines have any direct
bearing on the issue yet this Court has
indicated about the aforesaid judgments
in order to demonstrate that the COVID19 Pandemic situation and the subsequent
lockdown resulted in chaos on a large
scale which has affected the population at
large including students & their parents,
both
economically,
mentally
and
otherwise.

23. Though Chapter 10 of the Act,
2016 provides certification of specified
disabilities and in the present case, no
certificate has been issued yet the fact of
the matter would remain that considering
the illness of "Psychosis" with which the
petitioner was suffering during the relevant
period i.e the period in which third
semester examinations were scheduled, she
could not appear in the examination. The
intent of the petitioner is to study further
and to complete her M.A English course.
The
respondents
themselves
in
the
Ordinance more particularly Ordinance 9
Clause XV (c) have provided that students
of
distance
education
course
whose
admissions are cancelled are required to reregister for the programme and the reregistration shall be permitted subject to
certain conditions. No such provision has
been given for regular course students. In
the peculiar circumstances as have been
spelt out by the petitioner and as have been
indicated above by this Court namely the
unprecedented
COVID-19
pandemic
situation along with the medical condition
of the petitioner i.e "Psychosis" it would be
in the fitness of things that the respondentsUniversity consider the extension of re-
5 All. Jigyasa Tiwari (Minor) Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
423
registration to the petitioner keeping in
view the fact that Ordinance 9 which
though pertains to M.A English Distance
Mode, provides for a re-registration in
certain circumstances.

24. Accordingly, the present petition is
disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to
submit a fresh representation indicating her
grievance along with certified copy of this order
to the Chancellor of the University, i.e
respondent no. 2. In case, such a representation
is made then the Chancellor of the University
shall consider the re-registration of the
petitioner and her continuance in M.A (English)
course keeping in view the observations made
above, sympathetically.

25. Let such a consideration be done
within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this order.

26. It is also provided that as this order
has been passed in the peculiar facts of this
case as such, it shall not be treated as a
precedent.
----------
(2022)05ILR A423
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

Writ C No. 23323 of 2019

Jigyasa Tiwari (Minor) ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Amrendra Pratap Singh, Sri Swapnil
Kumar, Sri Sudhanshu Kumar, Ms. Shalu
Singh
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Mahendra Pratap

(A) Education Law - Courts in rarest of
rare case can grant interim protection in
admission matters
- when they are
convinced that no injustice would be
meted to the other party - petitioner, who
has approached the Court for grant of
interim protection in admission matter has
an cast iron case - in the admission
matters misplaced sympathy is totally
unwarranted - Court cannot include any
qualification by a judicial fiat, as the same
is task, which is to be conducted by the
rule making authorities and not by the
courts of law - mere continuance of any
interim order does not create any right or
benefit, particularly, in the matter of
admission, wherein the issue relates to
the MBBS Course, whereat merit is of the
paramount consideration. (Para - 46,55)

(B) Education Law - Court cannot travel
beyond the jurisdiction so conferred upon
it, while granting a relief to an applicant,
merely because certain inconvenience is
sought to be meted to him/her - academic
qualifications and eligibility cannot be
always
tailored
to
suit
a
particular
candidate - mere continuance on the basis
of interim order does not create any right
in favour of the petitioner, particularly,
when admittedly she did not possess the
necessary required eligibility for being
included in the zone of consideration for
grant of horizontal reservation being 1%
of NCC Cadets (Para - 49,50)

Beseeching bizarre persecution a medical intern
- petitioned before Court - seeking judicial
avowal of the eligibility deficiency opportune to
admission in M.B.B.S. course - perpetuation of
the
same
on
makeshift
arrangement
-
Controversy relates to admission in M.B.B.S.
course - referable to National Eligibility Cum
Entrance Test (NEET) U.G. Counseling-2019 -
governed by a Government Order - setting out
conditions,
criteria
and
parameters
for
counseling/admission in M.B.B.S. and B.D.S.
courses - Horizontal Reservation - controversy
revolves around 1% reservation pertaining to