IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAIQA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 20m DAY OP N<3vEIs.mER 2p0_éV._V
PRESENT
THE I-IODFBLE Ivm. PD. DINAKARAN. cI§II'E°z?_Jz;fjsTI4cI?:O'
AND)
THE HON'BLE I»m.JUsTI'CVE \f_.(§.SAI§'H,AHIT "
WRIT APPEAL No..:§§§5/20u9(EDN-PzEE}"'
3.: MIsc.Iv.'T»a;5;8/2009. "T I '
BETWEEN:
THE SECRETARY ..
MEBICAL EDUCA'I'I()N_~- _
VIDI-IANA soD.DEA_ , :
GOVERNMENT ITARNATAIIA' "
EANGALQ.:zEf--"5_6'e...0;o1' A??ELLANT
(BY sR_I..B.VEERm3_PA.--.AG§i} "
AND V
DR s.J.RAJALA;IsITIV£!\.B';.D.s.
D/O LATE'---DRvS.JAN2}.RD.}?iAN MURTHY
REE' BY MOTHER' DR S.SI-IOBHA
BOTH R/A NO. ::--r:.:«g5._/..1.3..v
2ND' KRISHAN MAIN ROAD
I 'G.IR£NAC}£'1RV§"BANGALORE--56O {B85 RESPONDENT
. "'rI"iTs '.O.?§A«'}"2IT APPEAL IS FILED (3/5 4 02? THE
'EARNATA:-{AT'HIGH COURT ACT FRAYING To SET ASIDE THE
ORDER' 'PASSED IN WRIT PETITION N0.1828I/2009 DATED
03/G8/2009.
'IH'I-IIS MISC.W.10i48/'O9 IS FILED UKS/5 OF THE
'£,Ih'fi;TATION ACT FRAYING TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF 32
A7-DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL.
THESE WRIT MPEAL 81 $80 W. COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY. S}-'XBHAHIT J.. BELEVEREB
THE FOLLOWING:~
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the
W.P.No.18261/2009 being aggrieevedp by? lth4ej’t’etjdler«’.dated Y
3.8.2009 wherein the learned Si4ng;i’eiJudge_”o.f:
has allowed the writ petition in it part the!’
appellant herein to fo1IowVu°~t_he_Vprovisions contained
under Section 39 of Persons’«with’.Disabilities (Equal
Opportunities, Protect’ioVni.l_l of and Full
Participation} 3% seats for the
‘Physically dint of the seats in the
Governzx1’ent:’:;VyColliege:’—-.l§11d share of the State
Government ‘inl’t~h’e.seats,,po.f private colleges for which
‘H'”-cotirse5=fi:1″qnestion for the academic year 2010-11
further directed that the respondent
shailérconsiderl the case of the” petitioner and decide if
“she is” entitled for allotment of a seat under the
“‘iil=’h.ysicaliy Handicapped’ category by applying 3%
…_l’Vl”‘rese-rvation on the basis of her merit. If it is found that
u;=tl1e petitioner is entitled for a seat and would have been
Kiri?
13
Graduate Degree and Diploma Courses oughttto have
been reserved and there is noncompliance”-.’o.fi’vv.the
provisions of Section 39 of the Act félI1d:”t.vi11,’.:Vv’
Single Judge has safeguarded the. ,inter’e.stv;’of:VI,the partigs S f
by observing that only 3% x’esei?iriation~.
respect of 523 seats which ‘were ‘available,for”alio’tmen’t’
by the Government and theepetitionerhhwouldgpvhave been
entitled to a seat “sifm:’sha11 be allotted a
seat in the nextgacademit: entitled to
cost of the fact that the
petitioner:. with 75% physical
thiswcourt by filing this writ
petition.se-el«ri1:gr’ior.’jujstice, the cost awarded by the
learned SingleJ11}:lge”-isvitalso justified. Accordingly, We
the orderhpassed by the learned Single Judge is
does not suffer from any error or illegality
asitohhcall tftirinterference in this intra court appeal and
C pass theufoliowing order:
7Writ appeal is dismissed. Since the writ appeal is
“adismissed on merits, it is unnecessary to consider the
K \
\\:/*3
14
application for condonation of delay of 32 daysvix: filing
the appeal. n .
53/ A
JUDGE
Index: Yes/ N 0
Web Host: Yes’/Nou
bkv V ; ”