Many thanks mam for your hard efforts for converting the text for print impaired people
Kurzweil is a software through which one could convert images into text. This software is my lifeline. On 5/1/15, Vaishnavi Jayakumar <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Avinash, > > Where did you source a text version of this document? The MSJE document is > a pdf with images. > > I just spent the whole morning transcribing this and the ISLRTC document > and am cursing because my morning was a waste! > > Vaishnavi > > avinash shahi > <https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]&q=from:%22avinash+shahi%22> > Thu, 30 Apr 2015 06:50:34 -0700 > <https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]&q=date:20150430> > > 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.. > > Previous message > <https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg97482.html>View > by thread > <https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/index.html#97485>View > by date > <https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/maillist.html#97485>Next > message > <https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg97486.html> > > *Reply via email to* > > The Mail Archive home <https://www.mail-archive.com/>accessindia - all > messages > <https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/>accessindia > - about the list > <https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/info.html> > Expand > <https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]&q=subject:%22%5C%5BAI%5C%5D+Important%5C%3A+Minutes+of+the+preliminary+discussions+of+the+Expert+Committee+to+review+the+Guidelines+for+conducting+Written+Examination+for+PwDs%22&o=newest&f=1>Previous > message > <https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg97482.html>Next > message > <https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg97486.html> > > The Mail Archive home <https://www.mail-archive.com/> Add your mailing list > <https://www.mail-archive.com/faq.html#newlist> FAQ > <https://www.mail-archive.com/faq.html> Support > <https://www.mail-archive.com/faq.html#support> Privacy > <https://www.mail-archive.com/faq.html#privacy> > CADeSQ2i=vvPsoZazeD92JsmURkrbjvQ=k1shttqijh7mwnu...@mail.gmail.com > -- 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..
