On 7/18/10, raghuraman <[email protected]> wrote: > Chennai > > > Implement 3 p.c. quota for physically challenged: court > > > > > K.T. Sangameswaran > > > > > For all posts, including those in groups ‘A' and ‘B' > > > > > > CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has made it clear that the government should > implement three per cent reservation in all posts, including those in groups > ‘A' and `B' and for all future recruitments under the Persons with > Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full > Participation) Act. > Justice N. Paul Vasanthakumar passed the order on a writ petition filed by a > physically challenged person with locomotor disability. He also restrained > authorities from inviting applications in future for filling the posts > without reserving three per cent for the physically challenged. > In his petition, G. Sureshkumar stated that the TNPSC issued an > advertisement in July 2005 for recruitment of 1295 Assistant Surgeons > (General) and 530 Assistant Surgeons (Speciality). He sought quashing of the > notification citing the note embedded in it that “3 per cent > reservation for physically handicapped persons will not apply to this > recruitment.” > He had secured high marks in the written test and was called for the > interview. Only on account of failure to make the reservation, he was not > selected. > He sought a consequent direction to authorities to follow the reservation > for persons with disability, consider him under reservation for persons with > locomotor disability or cerebral palsy as per the provisions of the Act and > recruit him. > In its counter, TNPSC contended that General Rules stated that reservation > for physically challenged candidates should be made applicable in respect of > posts in groups ‘C' and ‘D' alone. The government had issued > orders in February 1988 in respect of Executive Posts in ‘A' and > ‘B' categories and no reservation needed to be made for the > differently-abled. > It also said that by a Health Department G.O. of July 1999, posts of > Assistant Surgeon (both clinical and non-clinical), Medical Officer (Siddha) > had been classified as Executive Posts. Therefore, no reservation was made > in the notification. > Mr. Justice Paul Vasanthakumar, citing rulings of the Supreme Court and the > High Court, said in the light of the Supreme Court judgment, the > authorities' stand could not be sustained. They could not now rely on a > proviso to Rule 22 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules as > the rule had been declared ultra vires by a Division Bench. > The judge said that the petitioner's application submitted under the general > category having been rejected on the ground of not signing it and the said > decision having been upheld by the Supreme Court in a connected matter, he > was unable to give any relief to the petitioner in respect of the selection > already made. > > cheers raghu > > > Voice your thoughts in the blog to discuss the Rights of persons with > disability bill at: > http://www.accessindia.org.in/harish/blog.htm > > 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 > I am ageshkumar from Kerala i read your mail about chennai high court order. is there any possibility to get the original court judgement if available please forward to my mail [email protected] or send the path to get it.
Voice your thoughts in the blog to discuss the Rights of persons with disability bill at: http://www.accessindia.org.in/harish/blog.htm 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
