Having repeatedly perusing the minutes of the meeting,I feel there is
a consensus emerging among the babus for thwarting the substantive
objectives of the existing comprehensive guidelines. Read below to
know what mediocre arguments was put forward by the UPSC and other
bodies to modify the guidelines. Let us all converge and take resolve
on one salient point that Invigilation is the crux and the thrust of
the guidelines which should be strengthened. No arbitrary
tempering,please. They say it is impracticable to provide
questionpaper in Braille. What a tardy response exposing their
political illwill. Can somebody inform UPSC that the UGC provides
questionpapers in Braille all over India in NET exams. And
questionpaper is not leaked? Why cant they do so? questionpaper will
not be leaked as they fear. Secondly, they say qualification of the
scribe should be lowered,that's non-negotiable isn't it? Anyway, its
very crucial time for all of us and hope we remain united and alert in
whatever strategy we adopt. Rungta sir,and NFB lets keep the fire on
until the issue is not resolved for one and all.
Below is the minutes of the meeting,those want to read PDF could visit
MSJE website.
Minutes of the preliminary discussions of the Expert Committee to
review the Guidelines for conducting Written Examination for PwDs held
under the Chairmanship of Secretary, DEPwD on 13,04.2015 at 04:00 PM
in the Conference Room, 5th Floor, Paryavaran Bhawan, New Delhi
The List of Participants is at Annexure.
2. Secretary, DEPwD welcomed the participants and requested Joint
Secretary, DEPwD to briefly explain the background of constitution of
the expert Committee and the agenda to be discussed in the meeting.
3. Joint Secretary, DEPwD stated that on the basis of the
recommendations of Chief Commissioner of Persons with Disabilities,
the Ministry had issued detailed guidelines for conducting examination
for Persons with Disabilities on 26th February, 2013. The guidelines
inter-alia include provision for scribe/reader/lab assistant, grant of
extra time to the extent of 20 minutes per hour of examination, option
of choosing mode of taking examination in Braille or in computer or in
large print etc. Recently, UPSC has raised certain issues relating to
practical implementation of the guidelines. UPSC has said that their
comments on the draft guidelines communicated in 2008 were not
considered. UPSC now has raised the issue of allowing private scribes
especially while taking main examinations (other than multiple type
question based examination), practicality of allowing question paper
in Braille etc. The issues raised by UPSC were also discussed in a
meeting held with DoPT when Chairman UPSC was also present. Staff
Selection Commission has also raised similar observations. In order to
look into the practical implementation issues raised by UPSC, SSC etc.
an expert Committee under the Chairmanship of Secretary, DEPwD has
been constituted. UPSC has now brought a detailed note outlining their
observations on implementation of these guidelines for consideration
of the Expert Committee. He further stated that the Committee was also
required to decide the associations/experts to represent different
disability associations namely visual impairment, hearing impairment
and locomotor disabilities in the Expert Committee. He also brought to
the notice of the Committee to the fact that the Department has
received representations requesting nomination of experts for the
cause of other disabilities such as Autism Spectrum Disorder, Specific
Learning Disabilities, and Speech Impairment etc.
4. Secretary DEPwD requested representative from UPSC to briefly
explain the problem being faced by them in implementing the
guidelines.
5. The representatives from UPSC submitted that they are allowing
scribes as per the choice of the candidates for multiple choice
question based examination such as ICS preliminary examination.
However, in case of main examination which is especially of
descriptive type they are allowing only Government scribes through
their centre coordinators. They stated that the discretion to the
candidates to opt for own scribe/reader would have an impact on the
integrity of the examination process as the candidate may bring a
scribe who is more proficient than him and who could improve the
content of the answers. The Commission has also received
representations alleging malpractices by the Candidates who had been
permitted to have their own scribes. The Commission was of the view
that no amount of invigilation could effectively obviate such
malpractices in a descriptive type of examination. The representatives
from UPSC further stated that the possibility of aspersions being cast
in the public domain about the performance of such candidates (who is
allowed to use his own scribe) even if the candidate qualified the
examination on merit could not be ruled out. They have further stated
that the commission has no resource to identify the scribes for making
panels at the district/division/state level. At present, the scribes
are being arranged through the coordinating supervisors who are
nominated by the concerned State Governments. UPSC was of the view
that the Government's scribes are governed by conduct rules and
thereby the chances of malpractice through them is minimised.
6. As regards the issue of doing away with fixation of any criteria
for the scribe, representative of UPSC stated that there should be
certain eligibility criteria like educational qualification for the
scribe so as to preclude the use of scribe who is more qualified and
has the ability to improve the performance of the candidate which
would tantamount to malpractice. Further, they have stated that at
present the Commission has been arranging for two scribes for each
eligible candidate keeping in view any aspect of emergency and also an
option for the candidate to select one out of the two scribes.
Allowing candidates more than one own scribe/ reader may also have
impact on integrity of the examination process since the candidate
would tend to bring subject specific specialists as scribe for
different exam papers.
7. With regard to the provisions in the guidelines allowing the
candidates to choose the mode of taking examination in Braille or on
computer or in large print, allowing assistive devices like talking
calculator etc, the representative from UPSC submitted that these
rules not only involve logistical . issues but may also have the
potential for representations/ complaints/litigations on the grounds
of the alleged unsatisfactory hardware/printout/recording devices etc.
Providing question
paper in Braille or in Computer in addition to the printed version
is likely to have involvement of multiple agencies and thereby impinge
on the confidentiality of question papers, which in turn could have
adverse impact on the examination process.
8. The representative of UPSC drew the attention of Committee to the
order of Hon'ble High Court of judicature at Bombay dated 19.08.2014
in W.P. No. 5953 of 2014 in the matter of Shri Sujit Shinde and
another Versus UPSC and other. In this order, the Hon'ble High Court
has taken note of the fact that UPSC has justified its stand of
prescribing its maximum educational qualification which a scribe can
possess. In the preliminary examination which has an objective type
test, where the correct answer from 4 alternatives is required to be
marked by shading the appropriate circle therefore, a scribe should be
able to read Hindi/English versions of the questions effectively.
Therefore, a scribe of who is of graduate or undergraduate level can
effectively assist the visually challenged candidate.
9. The representative of UPSC desired to know as to whether the
alternative objective question in lieu of descriptive questions for
hearing impaired person is recommending or mandatory in nature. JS,
DEPwD clarified that all the provisions of the guidelines including
para XV which deals with this aspect are mandatory.
10. The member SSC stated that the examinations conducted by SSC are
mostly based on multiple choice question papers. They allow only
Government scribes through their exam centre coordinators. SSC was of
the view that allowing private scribes even for multiple choice
answers would have impact on the integrity of the examination process.
SSC was in agreement with the submission of UPSC relating to other
issues such as fixation of criteria for the scribe, provision for
choice of taking examination in Braille, allowing assistive devices
etc.
11. Shri T.D. Dhariyal, former Dy. CCPD and present Consultant in the
Office of CCPD has intimated that the process of framing of policy
guidelines for conducting examination of PwDs was initiated in 2001
-02 in consultation with Ministry of Human Resource 85 Development and
DoPT. As both the Agencies did not issue any guidelines, O/o CCPD took
up the issues based on number of representations received by it. The
stakeholders were of the view that there should not be any criteria
such as the qualification of the scribe should be one class below the
minimum required educational qualification for the examination. After
prolonged consultations the Commission was of the view that no fixed
criteria should be there for selection of scribe and the scribe is to
be for all class of PwDs whose writing
capacity or speed is affected. Subsequently the recommendations
were sent to the Ministry for framing of guidelines.
12. Director, IPH submitted that it would be appropriate if UPSC on
their own analyse the scenario taking into account number of cases
where scribes were used, number of PwDs selected using such scribes,
qualification of scribes, number of complaints received against such
scribes etc. and submit a detailed justification for consideration of
Committee.
13. Representative from Department of Higher Education submitted that
the Ministry of HRD on its own does not have expertise to comment on
the relevant aspects. He suggested that representatives from UGC,
AICTE and CBSE may be co-opted as members so as to make the
deliberations of Committee more meaningful.
14. Director, NIHH suggested that no criteria for the scribe should
be prescribed rather the invigilation process should be strengthen to
take care of any perceived malpractices during examination process.
15. After detailed deliberations, the following decisions were taken:
i.
The office of CCPD will submit a detailed documentation on framing of
the guidelines containing the range of issues raised on each aspects,
how the recommendations were finalised etc.
ii. UPSC will submit detailed justification for seeking modifications
in the guidelines taking into account number of cases where scribes
were used, number of PwDs selected using such scribes, qualification
of scribes, number of complaints received regarding use of such
scribes (both government and private) etc. iii. Representatives from
UGC, AICTE and CBSE may also be coopted as members of the Expert
Committee. Department of Higher Education will expedite the process of
nomination of these agencies.
iv. The following may be nominated to represent various class of
PwDs in the Committee:-
Class of Disability
Nominated Member
a Visual Impairment
(i) Ms. Kanchan Pamnani (ii) Shri S.K. Rungta, National
Federation of Blind.
Hearing Impairment
(i) Mrs. Snigdha Sarkar, Secretary, ANWESHA
(ii) Prof. S andhya Limay e, Centre of Disability Studies and
Activities, Mumbai
/.
Locomotor
Disabilities
Shri Komal Kabra, Khalsa College, Delhi University
Mental Impairment
Ms Nirmala Srinivasan
16. The meeting ended with vote of thanks to the chair.
*** ** ** ********* **
Minutes of the Preliminary Discussion of Expert Committee to review
the Guidelines for conducting examination for PwDs held under the
Chairmanship of Secretary, DEPwD on 13.04.2015 at 04:00 PM
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
1. Shri Low Verma, Secretary, DEPwD in chair
2. Shri Awanish K. Awasthi, Joint Secretary, DEPwD
3. Ms Archana Verma, Joint Secretary, DoPT
4. Shri R.K. Arora, Additional Secretary, UPSC
5. Shri Sanjay Mehrishi, Joint Secretary, UPSC
6. Shri Chetan Prakash Jain, Member, SSC
7. Dr. Dharmendra Kumar, Director, IPH
8. Dr. A.K. Sinha, Director, AYJNIHH
9. Shri T.D. Dhariyal, Consultant, O/o CCPD
10. Shri Davinder Pal Singh, Deputy Secretary, Department of
Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource 85 Development
11. Shri D.K. Panda, Under Secretary, DEPwD
--
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..
