S.U.KHAN, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) IN this case, arguments were heard on 26.6.2009. Order dated 26.6.2009 is quoted below: "Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 and 3 has cited three author­ities : 1. Noor Ali Ansari v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (72) ALR 446, 2. Vani Pati Tripathi v. Director General, Medical Education and Training, Jawahar Bhawan, Ashok Marg, Lucknow and others, 2003 (52) ALR 6 (Sum)=2003 (1) UPLBEC 427, 3. Pranjal Bishnoi v. U.P. Technical University Lucknow and others, 2003 (52) ALR 244, Order reserved. Put up for delivery of order on 30.6.2009." Petitioner obtained 44.88% marks at graduate level. Petitioner ap­peared in the entrance test for admission in B.Ed, course conducted by Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, respondents No. 2 and 3 for the year 2008. Petitioner was invited for second counselling on 9.6.2009 at Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidya Peeth, Varanasi, Principal of which is respondent No. 4. However, pe­titioner has not been given admission, hence she has filed this writ petition. The minimum requirement for admission in B.Ed, course is 45% marks at gradu­ate level. Petitioner has obtained 44.88%. In the above authorities, it has been held that 50% means 50% or more and even if the marks are 0.01% less than 50%, i.e., 49.99%, still it cannot be said that the marks are 50%. In the above authorities of B.P. Tripathi and P. Bishnoi 49.67% and 49.66% were held not to be 50%.
(3.) THE other argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that peti­tioner is partially handicapped in her legs, (according to the certificate Annexure-4 to the writ petition, the disability is 80%), hence by virtue of corri­gendum issued on 6.9.2008 by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra, (Annexure-I) 5% relaxation in the educational qualifications is to be given to the petitioner. Clause-gha of the corrigendum states that disable blind candidates would be granted 5% relaxation in educational qualifications. The corrigendum does not say 'disabled and blind', it only says 'disabled blind'. Accordingly, the said re­laxation of 5% cannot be granted to other disabled persons, i.e., other than blind candidates. Learned Counsel has cited two orders of this Court passed in Writ Petitions No. 24874 of 2009 dated 13.5.209 and No. 22953 of 2009 dated 12.5.2009 where this question was involved but instead of deciding the same, the Court directed the Registrar of the same University to decide the matter.;