Tuesday, December 20, 2022

Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) to re-consider launching 3 months online bridge course for B.Ed. (Special Education) students of Jamia Millia Islamia – Delhi High Court

14 November 2022

Delhi High Court

 

Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) to re-consider launching 3 months online bridge course for B.Ed. (Special Education) students of Jamia Millia Islamia – Delhi High Court

 

Jamia Millia Islamia, a Central University, started B. Ed. (Special Education) Learning Disability [B.Ed. Spl. Ed. (LD)] course in the year 2001. For conducting B.Ed. (Special Education) course, a university needs recognition from Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI). Jamia Millia Islamia, however, did not have the recognition for conducting B.Ed. Spl. Ed. (LD) course from RCI till the year 2011. From 2001 till 2011, around 300 students passed out from Jamia Millia Islamia with B.Ed. Spl. Ed. (LD) degree.

 

In 2013, 3 months online bridge course was conducted by Jamia Millia Islamia, with the approval of RCI, for the students, who did B.Ed. Spl. Ed. (LD) during the period from 2001-2011, so that their degrees could be regularized. Only 23 students could avail the benefit of the said 3 months online course because no personal initiation/email/SMS was given by the University to the students regarding the said course.

 

One student namely, Mrs. Garima Midha, who did B.Ed. Spl. Ed. (LD) from Jamia in the year 2003-2004, requested the University as well as RCI to re-launch the 3 months online course for her and other similarly situated students. University agreed to the request of Mrs. Midha but RCI refused to allow the University to re-conduct the course.

 

Being aggrieved, Mrs. Midha filed a writ petition [W.P. (C) No. 13749/2022] before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.

 

Hon’ble Delhi High Court, vide Order dated 14.11.2022, allowed the writ petition with the following directions: -

 

10. On above representation, RCI’s stand, as borne out from their counter affidavit, is that the bridge course was only a one-time concession and since it has been discontinued, “the same cannot be conducted for the sake of the petitioner, who is ignorant of the statutory status of the answering respondent.”

 

11. While RCI is conscious of the predicament of the students and fortunately stepped in to enable students to qualify as special educators by launching FC-ECLD online course, it is now not agreeable to extend this benefit to the Petitioner. Therefore, question arises whether benefit of bridge course should be restricted as a one-time measure. No doubt this facility cannot be opened for one student alone. However, as it appears from the representation of the University, there are large number of students are still not qualified. It must be noted that the University is agreeable to conduct the course. Furthermore, the objective and rationale behind introducing the said bridge course must be kept in mind. The University did not apply for CRR as it was not covered under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. Requirement for registration in RCI-CRR, however, later became an essential criterion for employment as a Special Educator. Thus, students despite training/ education remain unqualified for employment as a Special Educator. In order to boost employment for such students, RCI introduced the bridge course.

 

12. In the opinion of this Court, the foregoing reasons, re-launching the course would only further interest of the students and ultimately address the needs of special children as Petitioner’s counsel informs that there is a dearth of qualified teachers/ special educators. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed with the following directions: -

 

(i) RCI shall decide the representation of the University dated 17th/ 18th August, 2022, in light of the observations made hereinabove, within a period of six weeks from today. In the event, RCI finds favour with University’s representation – wide publicity be given to the decision by issuing public notices as well as written intimation to all eligible students, at their last known address available with Respondents.

 

(ii) In the event RCI takes a view which is adverse to the Petitioner, she shall be at liberty to take recourse against the same, in accordance with law.”

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2022120116698925752022%20Del%20Single%20-%20Garima%20Midha.pdf

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php

 

 

[Garima Midha Vs. Rehabilitation Council of India & Ors., W.P. (C) No. 13749/2022, decided on = 14.11.2022]

 

Anuj Aggarwal

Advocate

D-26/A, First Floor, Jangpura Extension,

New Delhi - 110014

 

483, Block-2, Lawyers Chambers,

Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003

Mobile – 9891403206

Landline – 011 - 35554905

Email – anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com

No comments:

Post a Comment