IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
  
  W.P.(C) 12761/2005
  
  MASTER VENKATESH BHATNAGAR ..... Petitioner
  Through Mr.Vijay Nair, Advocate.
  
  
versus
  
  Through Ms.Sujata Kashyap, Advocate for
  Respondents No.1 to 4.
  Mr.Atul Kumar, Advocate for
  Respondent No.5.
  
  CORAM:
   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN
  
   O R D E R
   11.08.2005
  
  pplication was made on behalf of the Petitioner for changing subjects from Social Science to Painting by the School concerned, which request was allowed by the CBSE keeping the Petitioner's circumstances in view.
  The Petitioner had appeared in the Common Entrance Test, 2005 and was found meritorious for admission to the Diploma in Computer Engineering. However, at the time when the fees were being deposited, by the Petitioner, his candidature has been c
  ancelled by
  W.P.(C) 12761/2005 page 1 of 4
  Respondent No.2, Board of Technical Education, Delhi acting through Respondent No.3, Gobind Ballabh Pant Polytechnic on the grounds that the Petitioner had not studied Social Science as one of his subjects in the Xth Class. The minimum eligibility as co
  tained in the Information Bulletin for Admission to Full Time Diploma Programme in Polytechnics, CET-2005:
  Passed Xth class of 10+2 or Matric or any other exam recognized as equivalent to Xth class exam conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) or an equivalent recognized board with minimum 45% marks in the aggregate of five subjects securi
  g minimum 33% marks in each of English, Maths, Science (separately in Theory and Practical), Social Science and one additional language (which reflects higher marks).
  Since the Petitioner has not appeared in Social Science at the stage of Class X, his candidature has been cancelled. It has been contended that in the Common Entrance Test there are no questions pertaining to Social Science. The argument that this sub
  ject may not be essentially relevant for Computer Engineering is indeed an attractive one. A review by the Respondent may be necessary.
  Regrettably, the Petitioner cannot avail the benefits of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 since for reasons which I find inexplicable, only physical disabilities of three kinds ar
  e contemplated by that Act. This Court had occasion to observe the possible incongruity in this Statute in the context of a person suffering from heart ailment in
  W.P.(C) 12761/2005 page 2 of 4
  Kumar Bharat Prasand Narain Singh Vs. Airport Authority of India, 2005 (5) AD (DELHI) 513. Parliament may consider whether amendments are called for.
  In a case where a mental disorder or disability is being suffered there appears to be no justification to exclude such persons from the meagre 3% reservation for the disabled. This is especially so because of the existence of National Trust for Welfare
  of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Rules, 2000 which could possibly bring succour to the Petitioner if the Act is amended. Had the Petitioner been eligible for consideration under the Persons with Disab
  lities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 the impasse in which he find himself may not have transpired at all.
  The marks obtained by the Petitioner indicate that he has overcome his affliction. But nevertheless he has been shut out from pursuing a course in which he has already proved his merit. Educators are becoming too bureaucratic. Unfortunately for the Pet
  itioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution this Court would ordinarily not issue Writs of Mandamus or any other Orders which would have the effect of re-writing norms which have been spelt out well in advance by the Respondents concerned. Therefore,
  although the Petitioner is entitled to special consideration, which he has not received at the hands of the Board of Technical Education, Delhi which has obdurately stuck to its
  W.P.(C) 12761/2005 page 3 of 4
  minimum eligibility norms and thus no relief can be granted to the Petitioner.
  The Writ Petition is disposed of in these terms.
  
  
  
  
  
  VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J
  AUGUST 11, 2005
  'ac'