On 8/20/14, avinash shahi <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear All > I'm attaching the interim direction given by the Delhi High Court > yesterday in matters of Sambhavana v. UPSC. All examinees are > requested to carry the order to the Exams Centres to withstand > harassment. Great Job done by learned Council Mr Pankaj Sinha in Delhi > and Madam Kanchan Panmani in Mumbai. But battle is not yet over. I > hope lawyers in the field continue working in unison to carry the > battle of disability rights in the Courts in the future also. Below > relevant sections are pasted for quick perusal... > > 9. So far as the petitioner's prayer to stay the Preliminary > Examination scheduled to be held on 24.08.2014 is concerned, prima > facie it appears to us that reservation of only two vacancies for > visually impaired candidates out of 26 vacancies reserved for > physically handicapped category is not based on proper assessment of > the vacancies available in all the Services participating in the > examination. > > 10. We have also taken note of the fact that in the counter affidavit > filed on behalf of Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, > it is stated that the said Ministry is a Cadre Controlling Authority > only for IAS and that out of 180 vacancies sought to be filled up in > IAS on the basis of Civil Services Examination - 2014, six vacancies > are reserved for candidates belonging to physically handicapped > category, i.e., 2 each for visually impaired, hearing impaired and > locomotor disability. Thus, for IAS itself two vacancies are reserved > for visually impaired. What is the vacancy position in the other 19 > Services that are identified suitable for physically disabled category > is not known. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of UPSC is silent > on this aspect and no particulars have been furnished about the number > of vacancies furnished by the other Cadre Controlling Authorities. > Under these circumstances, prima facie we find substance in the > contention of the writ petitioner that the reservation for visually > impaired candidates is not in conformity with Section 33 of the > Disabilities Act, 1995. However, we are not inclined to stay the > Preliminary Examination on that ground. > > 11. It is to be noticed that the UPSC in its counter affidavit has > categorically stated that whatever figures that have been shown in the > impugned Notice are only a tentative indication. In fact it is > specifically mentioned in the impugned Notice itself that the final > number of vacancies may undergo change after getting firm number of > vacancies from Cadre Controlling Authorities. Therefore, we deem it > appropriate to allow UPSC to proceed with the Preliminary Examination > as per the schedule making it clear that the UPSC shall ensure proper > assessment of actual number of vacancies reserved for visually > impaired candidates before conducting the Main Examination. > > 12. Coming to the other interim relief sought, i.e., provision of 20 > minutes per hour additional time to the Visually Impaired candidates, > the learned counsel for the UPSC has placed before this Court a set of > Rules issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension > by Notification dated 31.05.2014. It is contended by the learned > counsel that the said Rules are meant for following the uniform > procedure while conducting the competitive examinations by the UPSC in > 2014 in 23 services specified therein and UPSC is bound to follow the > said Rules. > > 13. Section II (A)(iv) of the said Rules which deals with Preliminary > Examination reads as under: > > "(iv) Each paper will be of two hours duration. Blind candidates will > however, be allowed an extra time of twenty minutes for each paper." > > So far as Main Examination is concerned, Section 11(B) provides: > > "(i) Candidates must write the papers in their own hand. In no > circumstances will they be allowed the help of a scribe to write the > answers for them. However, blind candidates will be allowed to write > the examination with the help of a scribe. Blind candidates will also > be allowed an extra time of thirty minutes at each paper @ ten minutes > per hour." > > 14. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance > upon the Guidelines issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and > Empowerment which provides for 20 minutes additional time per one > hour. > > 15. We have carefully gone through the Office Memorandum (OM) dated > 26.02.2013 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Social > Justice and Empowerment, Department of Disabilities Affairs, New Delhi > under which guidelines were issued for conducting written examination > for persons with disabilities. It is evident from the said OM that the > guidelines were issued as per the directions of the CCPD to circulate > uniform and comprehensive guidelines for conducting examinations for > the persons with disabilities for compliance by all concerned. > Clause-XI of the said guidelines reads as under:- > > "XI The word "extra time or additional time" that is being currently > used should be changed to "compensatory time" and the same should not > be less than 20 minutes per hour of examination for persons who are > making use of scribe/reader/lab assistant. All the candidates with > disability not availing the facility of scribe may be allowed > additional time of minimum of one hour for examination of 3 hours > duration which could further be increased on case to case basis. > > 16. It is also observed that the said guidelines were circulated to > the Secretaries of all Ministries/Departments as well as the > Secretary, UPSC requesting to ensure compliance of implementation of > the same. > > 17. It may be added that the Chief Commissioner for Persons with > Disabilities (CCPD) is an authority appointed under Section 57(1) of > the Disabilities Act, 1995 for the purposes of the said Act. Section > 58 of the Disabilities Act, 1995 provided for the functions of the > CCPD which included taking steps to safeguard the rights and > facilities made available to persons with disabilities. > > 18. That being so, the guidelines dated 26.02.2013 issued by the > Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment on the recommendation of > CCPD apparently for the purpose of safeguarding the rights and > facilities made available to persons with disabilities, cannot be > treated as mere executive instructions as sought to be contended by > the respondents. According to us, the guidelines dated 26.02.2013 > which are issued for effective implementation of the provisions of the > Disabilities Act, 1995, have statutory force and are bound to be > implemented by all the departments and authorities. > > 19. It is no doubt true that UPSC is a Constitutional and independent > body, however the Civil Services Examination Rules - 2014 are not made > by UPSC but according to their own counter affidavit, the Commission > is merely implementing the Rules notified by the Department of > Personnel and Training, Government of India. The counter affidavit > filed on behalf of the Department of Personnel and Training is silent > as to why the guidelines dated 26.02.2013 issued by the Ministry of > Social Justice and Empowerment were not complied with while issuing > the Rules for Civil Services Examinations, 2014 vide Notification > dated 31.05.2014. > > 20. Be that as it may, the Civil Services Examination Rules, 2014 > issued by the Department of Personnel & Training vide notification > dated 31.05.2014 which are only in the nature of executive > instructions, cannot override the statutory guidelines dated > 26.02.2013 issued in terms of the provisions of the Disabilities Act, > 1995 to ensure that a uniform and comprehensive procedure is > prescribed for conducting examination for persons with disabilities. > > 21. For the aforesaid reasons, we find force in the submission of the > learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents are bound to > allow additional time of 20 minutes per hour to the visually disabled > candidates in the Civil Services Examination, 2014, as provided in the > guidelines dated 26.03.2013. > > 22. Accordingly, both the CMs are disposed of with the following directions > :i. > The Preliminary Examination in pursuance of the impugned notice dated > 31.05.2014 may be conducted and the results be declared as per the > schedule. > ii. However, none of the visually impaired candidates should be > disqualified in Preliminary Examination on the ground that only 2 > vacancies are reserved for the visually impaired candidates out of 26 > vacancies reserved for physically handicapped category. > iii. Before the schedule for Main Examination is fixed, the > respondents shall ensure proper assessment of number of vacancies > reserved for visually impaired candidates in conformity with 1% > reservation provided under Section 33 of the Disabilities Act, 1995 > and notify the same. > iv. The visually impaired candidates shall be allowed additional > time/compensatory time of 20 minutes per hour in both Preliminary and > Main Examinations, apart from extending the help of scribe as provided > under the guidelines dated 26.02.2013 issued by the Ministry of Social > Justice and Empowerment. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Avinash Shahi > Doctoral student at Centre for Law and Governance JNU > > > 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.. >
-- With best regards, Ramdas shivhare, email [email protected], skype ID ramdas.shivhare, mobile +919968244896, it is really a great job which is done by Sambhavana organization and MR. Pankaj ji. I think, the time has come when PWD is not suppose protect there rights without the intervention of court. 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..
