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 reregistration 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 re-registration 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 re-register her for the third semester and to permit her to join the third semester and appear in the said examination.

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 re-registration 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.

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 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 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 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 COVID-19 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 re-registration 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 respondents-University consider the extension of re-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.