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/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