If I had no family and love ones I would have blinded some of these officials and made them write with the scribes. Experience is the best teacher,they say.
On 5/28/15, Mohib Anwar Rafay <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.. > -- 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..
