> dear friends, > Please make a note of the two important judgements issued by > Mr. Prasanna > Kumar Pincha, Chief Commissioner for Persons with > Disabilities. > > These two judgements relate to identification of jobs and > common exam > writing guidelines. > i congratulate the CCPD's remarkable courage and activism. > > > The complete text of the two judgements is copied below. The > same is also > available on CCPD website. > > ***** Regarding identification of posts ******* > > In the Court of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with > Disabilities > > Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment > > Case No. 859/1011/12-13 > Dated: 23.11.2012 > > In the matter of: > > Suo-motu > > Versus > > Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, > > Department of Disability Affairs, > > Through : Secretary, > > Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. > ... Respondent > > Date of Hearing : 20.11.2012 > > Present :- > > 1. Shri K.V.S. Rao, Director > . On behalf of Respondent > > 2. Non appeared. > . On behalf of the Complainant > > O R D E R > > > 1. > Section 32 of the Persons with Disabilities > (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full > Participation) Act, > 1995, hereinafter referred to as the Act, provides as > under:- > > ""Every appropriate Government shall (a) identify > posts in the > establishments which can be reserved for the persons with > disability; (b) > at periodical intervals not exceeding three years, review > the list of posts > identified and up-date the list taking into consideration > the developments > in technology." > > 2. The list of > identified posts for persons with disabilities > under Section 32 of the said Act was last issued vide > Ministry of Social > Justice and Empowerment's Notification Nos.16-70/2004-DD-III > dated 18.1.2007 > for Group A and B posts and dated 15.3.2007 for Group > C and D posts > respectively. Going by the mandate of Section 32 of > the said Act, issuance > of a revised/updated list of identified posts in Group > A and B fell due on > 17.1.2010 and in Group C and D on 14.3.2010. Thus, the > Department of > Disability Affairs, Ministry of Social Justice & > Empowerment, Government of > India, had not complied with the mandate of Section 32 of > the said Act nor > did they respond to the Chief Commissioner's letter dated > 11.7.2012 > > 3. This Court vide > letter No.9-10/CCD/2008/R3920 dated 11th July, > 2012 followed by letter dated 29.08.2012 had suggested to > the Ministry of > Social Justice & Empowerment as follows :- > > (I) It would be > expedient to set up Committees well before the > expiry of three years from the date of issuance of last > notifications for > identification of posts with a mandate, inter alia to > complete the task in > defined time frame. > > (ii) Compliance > with all the provisions of the Act including the > provision contained in Section 32 thereof must be ensured > with utmost > seriousness. > > . > > (iii) Since > the issuance of notification of revised/updated > list of identified posts was long over due, Ministry of > Social Justice & > Empowerment, Govt. of India should notify the same within > one month. > > 4. The Department > of Disability Affairs, Ministry of Social > Justice & Empowerment vide letter No.16-15/2010-DDIII > dated 11.9.2012 > submitted that the report of the Expert Committee > constituted to > identify/review the posts to be reserved in Group 'A', 'B', > 'C' & 'D' posts > for persons with disabilities was received in January, > 2012. While > examining the said report, it was felt necessary to seek > certain inputs from > Member-Secretary of the Committee and a few National > Institutes. Their > comments have since been received last week. Though > the Department assured > that it would endeavour to finalize the matter at the > earliest, no > definitive time frame within which the notification of > revised/updated list > of identified posts would be issued in compliance with the > mandate of > Section 32 of the Act was given. > > 5. Department of > Disability Affairs, Ministry of Social Justice & > Empowerment, Government of India vide Notice of > Complaint to Show Cause & > Hearing dated 17.9.2012 was directed to explain as to why it > should not > issue notification containing revised/updated list of > identified posts in > compliance with Section 32 of the said Act latest by > 15.10.2012. Else, the > respondent/his/her representative was directed to appear on > 1.11.2012 at > 3.00 p.m. to present the case. The hearing was, > however, adjourned to > 20.11.2012 at 11.00 A.M. on the request of the Department of > Disability > Affairs. > > 6. The > representative of the respondent submitted that > the > matter relating to the revised list of identified posts > alongwith draft > Notification has been submitted to the Hon'ble Minister for > her approval. > It would be notified immediately after it is approved by the > Hon'ble > Minister and is translated into Hindi. He, > however, did not specify any > time frame within which the revised list of identified posts > would be > notified. > > 7. On a meticulous > examination of the submissions of the > respondent contained in D.O. letter dated 11th > September, 2012 together > with the submissions made in the course of hearing, this > Court observes as > follows:- > > > (i) > That Section 32 of the Persons with > Disabilities Act casts an obligation on the appropriate > Government, the > Respondent Department in the instant case, to review and > notify > lists/revised lists of identified posts at periodical > intervals not > exceeding three years keeping in mind the developments > which have happened > in the filed of science and technology. > > > (ii) > That there has been a distinct > non-compliance > with the provisions of Section 32 by the respondent > Department on account of > disproportionate delay in reviewing and notifying a revised > and up-dated > list of identified posts. Incidentally, the list of > identified posts was > last notified by the respondent Department in the year 2007 > which means that > the revised and up-dated list should have been notified in > the year 2010. > > > (iii) > That the delay in reviewing and notifying the > list of identified posts is likely to prejudicially affect > the legitimate > entitlements and benefits conferred on persons with > disabilities by Section > 33 of the Persons with Disabilities Act since only those > posts can be > reserved which have been identified. > > > (iv) > That this Court further observes that there has > been a recurring non-compliance of Section 32 by the > respondent Department > evidenced by the fact that post the enactment of > Persons with Disabilities > Act, the first revised and up-dated list of identified posts > which should > have been notified in the year 2004 was notified in the year > 2007. It goes > without saying that the first list of identified posts was > notified by the > respondent Department post enactment of the PWD Act in the > year 2001. > > > (v) > That a perusal of the Notice of > Complaint to > Show Cause and Hearing dated 17.9.2012 would reveal how the > respondent > Department kept on ignoring the advice of this > Court communicated to it > from time to time. > > 8. In view of the > foregoing, this Court is pleased to direct > respondent to notify the revised/up-dated list of identified > posts within 30 > days from the date of receipt of this order and also to > ensure that the > provisions of Section 32 of the Persons with > Disabilities Act are complied > with in letter and spirit. Action taken may be > intimated to this Court. > > 9. A copy of > this Order may be posted on the Website of this > Court as soon as may be. > > Sd/ > > (P.K. Pincha) > > Chief > Commissioner > > for Persons with Disabilities > > ****** Regarding comprehensive common exam writing > guidelines ******* > > Case No.3929/2007 > Dated: 23.11.2012 > > In the matter of: > > Shri Gopal Sisodia > > General Secretary > > Indian Association of the Blind > > 154/C, Delhi Administration Flats, > > Sindhoran Kalan, Delhi-110052. > ... Complainant > > Versus > > State Bank of India, Mumbai > .. Respondent No.1 > > Banking Division, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi. > Respondent No.2 > > Department of Disability Affairs, > > Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment > > Through : Secretary, > > Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. > ... Respondent > No.3 > > Case No. 65/1041/12-13 > > In the matter of: > > Score Foundation > > Through Shri George Abraham, CEO, > > 17/107, LGF, Vikram Vihar, > > Lajpat Nagar-4, > > New Delhi-110024. > ... Complainant > > Versus > > Department of Disability Affairs, > > Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment > > Through : Secretary, > > Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. > ... Respondent > > Date of Hearing : 20.11.2012 > > Present:- > > 1. Mr. George Abraham with Neha Saigal on behalf > of Complainant](In Case > No.65/1041/12-13) > > 2. None appeared on behalf of Complainant (In Case > No.3929/07) > > 3. Shri K.V.S. Rao, Director on behalf of Respondent > > O R D E R > > > Shri Gopal Sisodia, General Secretary, > Indian Association of > the Blind, the Complainant filed a > complaint dated 13.5.2007 (Case > No. 3929/2007) under the Persons with > Disabilities > > (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full > Participation )Act, > 1995, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', regarding > issuance of > comprehensive Policy for conduct of written examinations for > persons with > disabilities. > > 2. After two > hearings in the case, it was decided to implead > Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment and the > following directions were > issued:- > > > (a) > The complainant to submit a draft of the > guidelines/provisions that need to be included for the > scribe to MSJE by 8th > November, 2007. > > > (b) > Ministry of Finance, in consultation with > Reserve Bank of India, Indian Bank Association and the other > stake holders > to submit their views to MSJE by 8th November, 2007. > > > (c) > MSJE with their input, may circulate the > draft > guidelines/criteria for the scribe to respondent 1 & 2 > and other > stakeholders and invite their comments and thereafter > finalise the > guidelines for scribes, preferably within 3 months. > > 3. During the third > hearing on 30.11.2007, the Counsel for the > Complainant submitted that any policy regarding facilities > to be given to > visually impaired and other persons with disabilities for > writing the issues > should not be finalized without consulting the stakeholders, > particularly > the beneficiaries of the policy. The representative of the > Ministry of > Finance submitted that RBI and State Bank of India had > submitted their > comments which had been forwarded to the Ministry of Social > Justice & > Empowerment. Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment > informed that a number > of suggestions from individuals/organizations had been > received which needed > to be consolidated and considered. As a considerable period > of time had > already elapsed, MSJ&E was advised to forward copies of > all the suggestions > within a week for consideration. A meeting was thereafter > convened under the > Chairmanship of Chief Commissioner on 19.2.2008 to hear the > stakeholders and > finalize the recommendations for a policy. After detailed > deliberations with > the stakeholders, the recommendations were forwarded to > Ministry of Social > Justice & Empowerment vide letter No. 1-2(Scribe)/ > CCD/2007 dated 17.3.2008. > After a number of correspondence, Chief Commissioner > for Persons with > Disabilities vide letter dated 26.9.2011 advised MSJ&E > to issue the > guidelines within a month of receipt of that letter. > > 4. In the meantime > another complaint dated 6.6.2012 (Case > No.65/1041/12-13) was received from Score Foundation, which > was also > forwarded to the Department of Disability Affairs vide > letter dated > 31.07.2012 with the request to issue the guidelines within > one month from > the date of the said letter incorporating the suggestions > contained in the > letter of Score Foundation dated 6.6.2012. > > 5. Department of > Disability Affairs vide their letter dated > 13.09.2012 submitted that they had decided to organize > workshops/seminars > through its National Institutes to gather views of persons > with disabilities > for making provision of a scribe before finalizing a uniform > policy for > persons with disabilities in various examinations. It was > further stated > that the consultations were yet to commence. > However, the matter was under > active consideration as views of certain National > Associations in this field > had been received and were being deliberated upon. It was > also stated that > all efforts to finalize the policy were being made. > > 6. This Court vide > letter dated 04.09.2012 requested Department > of Disability Affairs to issue the guidelines on or before > 20.09.2012, > failing which, it was stated, this Court may be > constrained to issue Show > Cause Notice. Accordingly, as the guidelines were not > issued, a notice of > complaint to show cause and hearing was issued on > 21.9.2012 with the advice > to issue the guidelines by 20.10.2012; else to appear before > this Court on > 2.11.2012. The matter was re-scheduled for hearing on > 20.11.2012 on the > request of Department of Disability Affairs. > > 7. During the > hearing on 20.11.2012, the representative of Score > Foundation in case No.65/1041/12-13 reiterating his > submissions envisaged in > his complaint dated 23.4.2012, stressed the need for > issuance of uniform > and comprehensive guidelines for persons with > blindness and persons with > low vision as they continue to be routinely subjected to > untold hardship and > disadvantage for want of such uniform and comprehensive > guidelines. He > further submitted that the document which has been put > together by Score > Foundation and others could be circulated to all concerned > as guidelines so > that these guidelines can be used as a reference by > various stake holders > for developing their own norms with regard to conduct of > examinations as > stated above in respect of candidates with > disabilities. The complainant > further stated that several of the bodies conducting > examinations are > unaware of ways in which candidates with blindness and/or > with low vision > can be included in the examination process. He > further added that several > examination conducting Authorities under-estimate the > capabilities of blind > and low vision persons to participate in the examination > process. > > 8. The > representative of Department of Disability Affairs, > Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Government of > India submitted that > the guidelines forwarded by Chief Commissioner for persons > with disabilities > were being considered by the Ministry. He added > that before taking a final > view in the matter, the Ministry had > convened a meeting with the > recruitment authorities/agencies like Staff Selection > Commission, Union > Public Service Commission, CBSE and sensitized them about > the proposed > guidelines. These authorities were requested to send > the detailed comments > on each of the points made by the Chief Commissioner for > persons with > disabilities so that their implementation is ensured. > While the comments of > these authorities/agencies were received, the subsequent > meeting to be held > with them to finalize the matter could not be held. It > was also decided by > the Ministry to request the National Institutes working > under the Ministry > to organize consultations to discuss the guidelines framed > by Chief > Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities. Even this > consultation could > not be held so far. Recently, on receipt of > a reference from Score > Foundation, the matter was again examined at the highest > level and it was > decided to take action on the guidelines framed by Chief > Commissioner for > Persons with Disabilities for reaching its logical > conclusion. He further > stated that a meeting would be convened in the middle of > December this year > with the relevant recruitment and academic bodies. > After consulting these > bodies, uniform and comprehensive guidelines would be issued > to all > concerned for compliance. > > 9. In the light of > foregoing, this Court is pleased to observe as > follows:- > > > (i) > That the question of issuance of uniform and > comprehensive guidelines in the matter of > conduct of all kinds of > examinations (both recruitment related and academics > related) involving > persons with disabilities has been under consideration by > the Respondent > Department for quite a few years now as can be seen > from the relevant Show > Cause Notice/Notice of hearing dated 21.9.2012. > > > (ii) > That it goes without saying that in the > absence of such uniform and comprehensive guidelines, > persons with > disabilities including the persons with blindness and > low vision continued > to be routinely subjected to prolonged and pervasive > hardship and > disadvantage with the result that more often than not, many > candidates with > disabilities have to run from pillar to post getting to fix > various problems > relating to taking off examinations by them such as issues > around > amanuenses, use of low vision aids, use of computers, extra > time etc. etc. > > (iii) That this Court > notes with utter dismay and shock that this > matter did not move forward with the Ministry since 2008 and > 2009 and it > continues to hang fire compounding the hardship, > disadvantage and > irreparable loss faced by persons with disabilities. > > (iv) That while the > instant complaints relate specifically to > persons with blindness and low vision, this Court is also > equally concerned > about the hardships and disadvantage faced by persons > belonging to other > categories of disabilities as well in the matter of > taking examinations. > > (v) That the > guidelines put together by the Complainant Score > Foundation and other concerned persons with low vision only, > and they do not > take on board the concerns of persons belonging to > other categories of > disabilities. > > (vi) That the guidelines > put together by the office of the Chief > Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities after elaborate > consultations > with primary and other stake holders including persons with > blindness and > persons with low vision etc. > > (vii) That this > Court acknowledges that developing guidelines and > norms in the matter of this ilk has to be an evolving > process characterized > by reasonable flexibility so as to cater to the exigencies > of a given > situation and also to take on board the advancement which > takes place in the > field of science and technology with the efflux of time. > > (viii) That in view of > the foregoing, the issuance of uniform and > comprehensive guidelines as stated above brooks no delay. > > 10. This Court, therefore, > directs the Respondent Department to > complete all necessary processes & procedures, finalize > and circulate for > compliance uniform and comprehensive guidelines to all > concerned put > together by this Court with or without modifications as may > be necessary for > conduct of all kinds of examinations within two months from > today. > > 11. Copy of this Order may > be posted on the Website of this Court > as soon as may be. > > ( P.K. Pincha ) > > Chief Commissioner > > for Persons with Disabilities > regards > raghu > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the > Google > Groups "Brailleacl" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] >
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
