Dear friends, I fully endorse the views of Mr. Pincha. His observations are correct and we all should jointly work for the cause. AICB has taken the initiative and now NFB is working further to correct the order of CAT by review petition. Finally the aim is to benefit the blind community.
Dr. Vimal Dengla On 5/13/16, Harish <[email protected]> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Prasanna Kumar Pincha > To: [email protected] > Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 7:57 AM > > > Dear Friends! > > > > Of late, my attention stands drawn to a chain of correspondence which has > happened between Shri S.K. Rungta, General Secretary, NFB and Shri A.K. > Mittal, President, AICB on Access India/Say Everything over an order passed > by CAT in an AICB initiative involving the question of eligibility of 100% > blind persons having B-ED degree in special education to seek > appointment as Trained Graduate Teachers [TGT]. > > > > I must begin by acknowledging that I have not gone through the original text > of the concerned CAT order and that the broad observations which I am > currently in the process of making in this note are based on the > understanding I could elicit from the said chain of correspondence. > > > > Anyone with a sane and sensible head over his shoulders is bound to agree > that the CAT order in question is historic as it now paves the way for > totally blind persons with B-ED degree in special education to seek > appointment as TGT. So, hats off to AICB for this spectacular success! > > > > Having said as above, I must observe with refreshing candour that this > spectacular success does not take away from the fact that certain > observations made by the CAT in the order under reference, particularly, > observations made in para 35 of the order, and, more particularly, those > made in the concluding part of para 35 of the order do invite comments no > matter how laboriously or painstakingly one attempts to contexualise them. > Para 35, I understand, runs as follows: > > > > "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." > > > > Now, without splitting hairs over whether these observations do or do not > form part of the finding; and, whether they do or do not enunciate any > principle; or whether techno-legally they have or do not have any > precedential value; and, even assuming that these observations, > particularly, the one to the effect that it is acceptable that 100% blind > persons may perhaps not be able to teach even simple subjects in classIx-X > have been made in passing, I feel we have serious reasons to worry as blind > persons. With utmost respect to the CAT, I strongly feel that observation of > this ilk is fraught with potentially damaging consequences; and, hence, I do > see eye to eye with Shri Rungta and share his apprehension that such an > observation will come in handy, virtually on a platter for those who are > working overtime against the legitimate interests of the blind--- Yes, such > observation is likely to be misused particularly, in the matter of > influencing future judgments. It also goes without saying that observation > of this nature will only serve to deepen, perpetuate and reinforce the > entrenched institutional prejudices and misgivings towards the blind. > > > > It would also be in the fitness of things for me to state that if an > order/judgment is open to multiple interpretations, this too must worry us a > great deal as blind citizens. > > > > It would also be quite in context for me to express the view that the > application/relevance of of percentage criteria for determining the degree > of disability in the context of sensory disabilities is so utterly misplaced > for the simple reason that the measurable and quantifiable medical > parameters are in-built into the definitions of various sensory disabilities > in the PWD Act. To my mind, therefore, the definition of "person with > disability" as enshrined in the PWD Act is flawed to the extent it concerns > persons with various sensory disabilities. This explains why the Govt. seems > to have accepted the suggestion that percentage of disability is not > relevant in relation to sensory disabilities - a fact which is corroborated > by the RPD Bill in its present form as we know it today. Thus a blind person > is a blind person if he comes within the ambit of those prescribed/defined > measureable and quantifiable medical parameters; and, if he does not, he is > not a blind person. > > > > In the above view of the matter, I am of the firm opinion that a partial > review of the concerned CAT order/judgment seeking to expunge objectionable > portions of the CAT's observation which is likely to prejudicially affect > the legitimate interests of the blind would be quite in order. This will > not, in any way, affect the relief granted by the CAT to Shruti Poddar and > others. > > > > I wish to conclude by expressing my solidarity with NFB, AICB and all others > who are relentlessly working for advancement of the cause of rights of the > blind, and, for that matter, of persons with disabilities. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > Prasanna Kumar Pincha > > 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..
