Dear Friends,
We write to refer to the recent mail from Mr. S.K. Rungta, General Secretary, National Federation of the Blind, in which he has given his observations on the judgment in the case successfully argued by us in the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) information about which had been circulated by us on 29th April. Of course, we do realize that legal judgments can, sometimes, be open to multiple interpretations, depending on how one reads them. But, here, we wish to set forth the following few important facts of the case with a view to placing the entire issue in its proper and appropriate perspective/setting: 1. The title of the case argued and reported by us is "Shruti Poddar and Anr Vs. KVS”, and not "Parul Vs. KVS" as indicated in the mail under reference. We presume, therefore, that review application, if any, would lie in this case and not in the case "Parul Vs. KVS" which is obviously, a different matter, being argued by Mr. Rungta. We, of course, wish him every success in this different and separate case being argued by him. 2. It is factually not correct to say (as has been done in the mail) that “It is also noticed that notification of identified posts issued U/S 32 of Disability Act was not at all brought to the notice of the Tribunal resulting into such unwarranted and injurious finding.” The said list was very much submitted to the Tribunal as noted under Paragraph 27 of the judgment , which reads as follows: “27. Along with the rejoinder, the applicants had filed an Annexure C containing the list of posts identified for being held by Persons with Disabilities (OH including CP and LC, VH and HH) in Group C, …..” References to the list also find mention several times in the judgment, e.g. Paragraphs 5, 7, 8, 10, 12 and 24 -25. Perhaps, the above facts have, somehow, escaped Mr. Rungta’s attention. 3. As regards Paragraph 35 of the judgment alluded to in the mail under reference, the facts brought forward in our Application briefly stated, were as follows : ( A ) That, the KVS advertisement in question required TGT’s for teaching classes VI to VIII, a fact not denied by the respondent organization; ( B ) That NCTE Notifications dated 23.08.2010 and 29.07.2011 recognise the Bachelor of Special Education degree as a qualification for a person to be eligible for appointment as a Teacher to teach classes VI to VIII in a mainstream school, including the Kendriya VIdyalayas; ( C ) That our two applicants possessed this B.Ed. degree in Special Education and were, therefore, entitled to be interviewed for the posts of TGT’s, an opportunity which they had earlier been denied. It was this Application which was allowed by CAT under Paragraph 44 of the judgment. The statement quoted in the mail under reference from Paragraph 35 of the judgment does not hold any precedential weight in our view. To illustrate our point, reference is invited to the following observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court: (Government of Karnataka Vs. Gowramma) stating that “A decision is a precedent on it’s own facts. Each case presents it’s own features. It is not everything said by a judge while giving a judgment that constitutes a precedent. The only thing in a judge’s decision binding a party is the principle upon which the case is decided and isolate it from the ratio decidendi.” Similarly in CIT Vs. Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd., the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that “ It is neither desirable nor permissible to pick out a word or a sentence from the judgment of this Court divorced from the context of the question under consideration and treated as complete ‘law’ declared by this Court.” In view of the above, it becomes evident that any remark in the judgment is to be read in relation to the issues which were raised in the petition and/or issues which were argued during the proceedings. If none of these was the case, then a statement in itself cannot be said to be a finding of the court. Thus, in our view, neither the scope of any controversy has been enlarged by this judgment nor is there any possibility of any damage to the cause. Reference to subjects such as Maths and Science is in line with the fact that, as per the identification list of 2013, these posts are not identified for the 100% blind to teach in mainstream schools. (Please see serial nos. 74 and 75 of the Group C list). As for remarks regarding class IX and X teaching, one should see what these are trying to address. The Respondent KVS had introduced a letter dated 09. 06. 2014 stating that those holding Special B. Ed. degrees are not eligible to teach class 9th and 10th which, all would agree, is different from saying that the blind as such are unable to teach class 9th and 10th. To any careful reader of the judgment, it will be clear that we have assailed that letter. The observation of the Tribunal also is to be seen in the context of this letter which has been quoted in full in Paragraph 23 of the said judgment and which the court had to dispose of. In Paragraph 35 itself, the Tribunal has stated that this letter does not pertain to the present issue. To conclude, in our opinion, the judgment is very useful and sets at rest a pending controversy regarding equivalence of B. Ed. Special Education degree for teaching up to class VIII in mainstream schools. We would now like to lobby intensely with the NCTE to persuade them to accept this degree as equivalent to B.Ed. General for teaching classes IX to XII too. Towards that end we solicit support from all individuals /organizations. A. K. Mittal President All India Confederation of the Blind On 5/7/16, Misbah <[email protected]> wrote: > This seems to suggest that the cases related with disability matters > should be represented by the lawyers well-verse in disability ethics, > on the contrary of this not having the same may result in similar > retrograde observations by the lower judicial platforms. In my > opinion, the time has come when there is a need to have a disability > specialization in bachelor of law in line with environment/ > corporate/civil criminal etc. > > On 5/7/16, National Federation of the Blind India <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> This has reference to the judgment of CAT circulated by AICB in case >> title Parul Vs. KVS on the Issue of eligibility of persons possessing >> degree of B.Ed. in special education for appointment as TGT upto class >> VIII. We have carefully examined the said judgment and we are of the >> considered opinion that the said judgment is not in the interest of >> 100% blind persons. To support this opinion, I would like to invite >> the attention of all of you to the following findings returned in the >> said judgment:- >> >> "35. The subjects of Hindi and Social Studies are such in which the >> teacher concerned may not have to resort to writing on the blackboard >> for much of his teaching requirements, and, therefore, we do not find >> that it can be held that visually handicapped persons like the >> applicants, even though they are having 100% visual handicap, would >> not be able to teach Hindi and Social Studies subjects. If it was a >> case of Science or Maths, or any other subject, in which extensive use >> of writing on the blackboard by the teacher was necessarily required >> for teaching the students, it may perhaps be held that 100% visually >> persons may not be able to perform such a task of teaching those >> subjects. It is also acceptable that 100%VH candidates may perhaps not >> be able to teach classes IX-X even in the simple subjects, but the >> posts in question appear to be concerned with only teaching upto class >> VIII." >> >> It is also noticed that the judgment has thus enlarged the scope of >> controversy to return a finding about non-suitability of 100% blind to >> teach even simple subjects from Class IX onwards and also to teach >> subjects upto class VIII other than Hindi and Social Studies. It is >> also noticed that notification of identified posts issued U/S 32 of >> Disability Act was not at all brought to the notice of the Tribunal >> resulting into such unwarranted and injurious finding. All of you >> would agree that the teaching posts from class IX onwards (both TGTs >> and PGTS) have been declared identified as suitable for 100% blind as >> well. In view of the gravity of the matter, NFB has filed a review >> application for recall of the said findings on behalf of Parul whose >> O.A. on the said issue is already pending before CAT which is being >> argued by the undersigned. >> >> With regards, >> >> (S.K. RUNGTA) >> General Secretary >> National Federation of the Blind >> >> >> Register at the dedicated AccessIndia list for discussing accessibility >> of >> mobile phones / Tabs on: >> http://mail.accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/mobile.accessindia_accessindia.org.in >> >> >> Search for old postings at: >> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ >> >> To unsubscribe send a message to >> [email protected] >> with the subject unsubscribe. >> >> To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, >> please >> visit the list home page at >> http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.in >> >> >> Disclaimer: >> 1. Contents of the mails, factual, or otherwise, reflect the thinking of >> the >> person sending the mail and AI in no way relates itself to its veracity; >> >> 2. AI cannot be held liable for any commission/omission based on the >> mails >> sent through this mailing list.. >> > > > -- > with regards > Misbah > > > Register at the dedicated AccessIndia list for discussing accessibility of > mobile phones / Tabs on: > http://mail.accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/mobile.accessindia_accessindia.org.in > > > Search for old postings at: > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > > To unsubscribe send a message to > [email protected] > with the subject unsubscribe. > > To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, please > visit the list home page at > http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.in > > > Disclaimer: > 1. Contents of the mails, factual, or otherwise, reflect the thinking of the > person sending the mail and AI in no way relates itself to its veracity; > > 2. AI cannot be held liable for any commission/omission based on the mails > sent through this mailing list.. > Register at the dedicated AccessIndia list for discussing accessibility of mobile phones / Tabs on: http://mail.accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/mobile.accessindia_accessindia.org.in Search for old postings at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send a message to [email protected] with the subject unsubscribe. To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, please visit the list home page at http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.in Disclaimer: 1. Contents of the mails, factual, or otherwise, reflect the thinking of the person sending the mail and AI in no way relates itself to its veracity; 2. AI cannot be held liable for any commission/omission based on the mails sent through this mailing list..
