Para 7 of the representation from UPSC is outraging and hard to believe, because a visually impaired person is already at disadvantaged position that he had to take the services of the scribe. As according to UPSC the discretion 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 write/correct/improve the content of the answers. are they doing justice by providing third class clerks to the candidates writing mains exams? Nobody knows how many spellings mistakes these clirks are pauring into your well dictated answers. Allowing the scribe under prescribed qualification must be considered to bring parity between disabled versus non disabled candidates, but alas UPSC is taking it otherwise!
The whole system is biost against us. And that all I am wondering what the representatives from NIVH, NFB and other designated on the behalf of disabled community are doing there in the committee who is reviewing the guidelines? Any counter argument from their side? Or they are just to sit their and to listen whatever nonsence these government officials are talking there in the committee. A mobilisation and protest against UPSC and state PSC is the need of the hour. On 5/27/15, avinash shahi <[email protected]> wrote: > The Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities has > uploaded revised minutes of the meeting held for reviewing the writing > guidelines > > I'm below sharing relevant sections where UPSC has submitted detailed > note objecting against the current guidelines.. > > block quote > 7. The representatives from UPSC informed that they are allowing the > candidates to use their own scribes, in addition to Government scribes > for the objective type examination such as Civil Services > (Preliminary) examination. However, in case of Civil Services (main) > examination, which is of descriptive type they are allowing only > Government scribes who are arranged by Coordinator Supervisors > concerned. 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 write/correct/improve the content of > the answers. This may also become a commercial activity prone to > malpractices. UPSC has also received representations alleging > malpractices by the Candidates who had been permitted to have their > own scribes. UPSC was of the view that no amount of invigilation could > effectively obviate such malpractices in a descriptive > papers/examination. > > 8. 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. > > 9. They have further stated that UPSC has neither the presence nor > the resources to identify the scribes so as to make panels at the > Districts/Division/State level as per the requirements of the > examination Commission. Therefore, they have suggested that such a > panel should be prepared, maintained and updated by the State > Government concerned through district authorities from the local > resources/education Institutions and detailed guidelines for this > purpose may be formulated by the Government of India. This panel would > also facilitate the candidates with an option to select more than one > scribe/reader for writing different papers from such panel of scribes. > > 10. The representatives of UPSC have further mentioned that 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 > whereas the Exam conducting body has no control over the private > scribes. > > 11. 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 or > change the scribe opted by him. Allowing candidates to bring more than > one own scribe /reader on his own for writing different papers may > give the candidates an undue advantage and disturb the level playing > field. This may also have impact on integrity of the examination > process since the candidate would tend to bring subject specific > specialists as scribe for different papers in the examination. > > 12. The representative of UPSC also stated that the UPSC has been > providing scribes to the Visually Impaired candidates much before the > guidelines in the said OM came into existence and very few complaints > have been received from the candidates about the quality of the > scribes. Also, a large number of such candidates have been opting for > the Government scribes even when they had been exercised the option to > bring their own scribes in the Civil Services (Preliminary) > Examination. This is sufficient in itself to establish the efficacy of > the system which is a proven and a well established system being > operated by the UPSC. > > 13. In addition to the above, the representative of the UPSC > mentioned that except for one odd case, the Commission has not allowed > the candidates to bring their own scribe in the Civil Services (Main) > Examination. UPSC has been issuing detailed instructions to the > Coordinating Supervisors that the scribes being provided to the > candidates should not only be proficient in English but also in the > language medium opted by the candidate. He further mentioned that all > vacancies of PH candidate have been filled up in the Civil Services > Examinations in the recent past, where only Government scribes were > being allowed to PH candidate in the Civil Services (Main) > Examination. > > 14. 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 stated 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 sanctity and integrity of the examination > process. > > 15. 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 Civil Services (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. > > 16. 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. > > 17. 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. > block quote end > > > > > 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.. > -- Mohib Anwar Rafay Phone: +919 555 555 765 / +9192 7879 0000 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..
