Dear Colleagues,

A Division bench of Delhi High Court presided by Justice S. Ravindra Bhat
and Justice R.V. Easwar observed that arbitrary denial of 3% reservation
for persons with disabilities in terms of The Persons with Disabilities Act
1995,  would amount to discrimination.


Writing the judgement in the case titled W.P.(C) 983/2014 Nishant S. Diwan
Versus High Court of Delhi on 25th March 2014, , the bench observed
that the Disabilities Act made it mandatory for all government
organisations to reserve at least 3 per cent vacancies for the disabled and
that the decision of the High Court administration to not include the
disability quota in the upcoming direct recruitment process for the Delhi
Higher Judicial Services was "arbitrary and discriminatory".


The bench also struck down the argument that a five-judge committee on
09.03.2007, made no recommendation in respect of DHJS while making
recommendation about the DJS (comprising of civil judges and magistrates
only) saying that the Committee had considered the proposal in the
background of whether to provide for reservations in DJS and there was no
explicit reference to DHJS.


To access the Judgement pronounced on 25 March 2014 click here:  Delhi High
Court Judgement in W.P.(C) 983/2014 Nishant S. Diwan Versus High Court of
Delhi<http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/SRB/judgement/25-03-2014/SRB25032014CW9832014.pdf>


Click here to access the Supreme Court Judgement in Civil Apeal No.
9096/2013 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 7541 of 2009)
<http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/outtoday/9096.pdf>titled Union
of India and Anr  Versus National Federation of Blind and others.


The court has also directed the establishment to carry out a review of the
remaining number of vacancies in the DHJS that can be "appropriately
earmarked for those with disabilities according to the total number of
sanctioned posts", following which it could recruit the appropriate number
of persons in the next round of recruitment.


The court has directed the administration to carry out a "special
recruitment procedure" for only the earmarked vacancies falling to the
share of those entitled to be considered under the 3 per cent quota under
the Disabilities Act, within a year of the date of declaration of results
in the current recruitment process.


DHJS refers to appellate courts, which exercise appellate authority over
the lowest level of judiciary. Direct recruitment to DHJS is done through
an examination held by the High Court Establishment (HCE).


The HCE had issued an advertisement for recruitment to 14 posts in December
last year, setting aside four seats for SC/ST candidates and 10 for general
category. The examination for these seats is scheduled to be held on April
6.


The order was given on a plea filed by an advocate who is a person with
locomotor disability, who had alleged that non-inclusion of disability
quota in the DHJS recruitment was "contrary to the express provisions of
the Disabilities Act".


Advocate Nishant S Diwan, who has been practicing as an advocate since
1998, had also argued that the HCE was "under a duty to set-apart
appropriate number of posts having regard to the total cadre strength of
224 posts in DHJS".


The HCE had taken the decision that the disability quota would not apply to
the DHJS recruitments and would only apply to the magistrates and civil
Judges, since the notification issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and
Empowerment had mentioned only "magistrates of the subordinate judiciary".
The HCE had also taken the plea that since the examination was scheduled
for April 6, imposition of any quota at this late stage would "upset the
entire timeline and delay the recruitment process".


The court held that "there can be no difference for reservation under the
Disabilities Act" between the DJS and the DHJS since the DHJS officers
perform duties and functions similar to those in DJS.


The court directed the administration to set aside one of the 14 posts for
persons eligible under the disability quota, but has directed that the seat
should be kept vacant and should be clubbed with the next round of
recruitment.


Since as per the Supreme Court judgement in
UOI Versus National Federation of Blind, it is clarified that the section
33 is independent of Section 32 for making reservation, the Hon'ble Court
should have also passed directions to calculate the backlog of the total
vacancies since 01 Jan 1996 and not reserving one seat in the
present recruitment process.


Also the list of identified posts makes a mention that posts with
different nomenclature but with similar functions out to be reserved. Also
since posts of DHJS are also promotional posts for the lower judiciary,
these can not remain beyond the purview of reservation  in both
direct recruitment as well as promotional reservation envisaged by the
judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ibid.


regards
SC Vashishth
Advocate, Disability Rights
+91-9811 125 521


--
Posted By SC Vashishth to Blog post "Disability Rights Through
Courts<http://disabilityrightsthroughcourts.blogspot.in/>
"

-- 
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EMAIL OVERLOAD? Choose digest email in your deliver settings instead.
--- Archives @ https://groups.google.com/group/flight-wethepwd/topics ---

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "We the PwD of India...ON AIR TRAVEL" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/flight-wethepwd?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "We 
the PwD of India...ON AIR TRAVEL" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/flight-wethepwd.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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..

Reply via email to