Only lip sympathy for the physically challenged september 8, 2010 G. N. Karna
THE recent reprimanding of the Union Government by the Supreme Court on denial of jobs to two disabled candidates has sparked off a wider national debate on the pace of implementation of employment-related provisions of the existing Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. These judgments delivered by the Supreme Court with regard to providing jobs to Ms Pritilata Nanda (a physically disabled woman of Orissa, suffering from paralysis of lower limbs) against Class III post under South Eastern Railway (SER) and Ravi Prakash Gupta (a visually impaired candidate) as an IAS Officer are, indeed, quite historic in disability rights movement in India. Significantly, despite clearing a written test conducted by the railways 21 years ago, Pritilata was denied job by the railways on flimsy ground that her candidature was not sponsored by employment exchange. The Supreme Court has directed the South Eastern Railway to appoint Ms Nanda on a Class III post within two weeks with the entitlement to the actual monetary benefits retrospectively with effect from August 5, 2008 as also a sum of Rs 3 lakh as compensation for harassment by the SER. The same illogical ground was adopted by the UPSC in denying job to Ravi Prakash Gupta, notwithstanding his qualifying the Civil Services examination and fulfilling the eligibility conditions. The contention given was quite vague--that there was only one post meant for disabled persons, which included persons with other physical disabilities. Finally, the Supreme Court has directed the Centre to grant him posting in eight weeks. Both the judgments of the apex court are historic and like a slap on those defiant administrators/officials who, though are entrusted with the responsibility of implementing and ensuring the provisions of the existing Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995; they stoop to any means to nullify the implementation of job-related statutory provisions, especially in central and state universities, public sector undertakings and autonomous bodies (which normally skip away by citing technical reasons under the excuse of autonomy and excellence. Hence, these trendsetting judgments must be an eyeopener to all such errant officials who deliberately violate the statutory provisions meant for the disabled and disadvantaged sections. While in the case of Ms Pritilata Nanda, despite her being on the merit list, the authorities showed callousness and dereliction of duty in not issuing her the appointment letter, the appointment of Ravi Prakash Gupta was kept blocked unduly for three years despite his qualifying the civil services examinations. There could be innumerable such cases where, despite clear- cut provision of 3% job in all government establishments ranging from Class I and II to Class III and IV posts, the employment rights of disabled candidates are brazenly violated routinely because of insensitivity and deep- seated prejudice on the part of those babus who are legally mandated to ensure justice to the actual beneficiaries. Such victimisation of the disabled candidates in depriving job avenues has become the order of the day. Hence, there is greater imperativeness of amending or reshaping the job related provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, so as to extend the reservation facility to all category posts. Some strict and punitive provisions for overhauling misuse in selection/recruitment process must be put in place to deal with cases of victimisation of the persons with disabilities in selection/ appointment process. Given the scope for such discriminations, it is necessary that at every selection committee, there should be one member/expert from among the disability sector (preference be given to the expert who himself or herself is afflicted with disability) with vast knowledge and experience as representative of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (in case of Central establishments) and state disability Commissioners in case of state establishments. Especially with regard to selection of the candidate(s) against the reserved posts/vacancies, these designated representative should have the authority to submit a dissenting note to the Chairman of the Selection/Appointment Committee as also his/her immediate boss; which could be deterrent to flagrant violators. The recently constituted Committee for Drafting New Legislation for Persons with Disabilities (by the nodal Ministry of Social Justice & Employment/Government of India) must take special note of these pro-active historic judgements delivered by the judiciary while finalising the draft legislation. Dr Karna, Honorary President of the Society for Disability and Rehabilitation Studies, is also a Member of the Committee for Drafting New Legislation for Persons with Disabilities source: www.tribuneindia.com information exists to dissiminate avinash shahi persuing masters in political science JNU delhi E-mail: [email protected] phone: 98,71,18,49,04. 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
