Mohib, this will have impact at many other places, State of UP, State of West Bengal, State of Kerala, State of Tamil Nadu, State of Jharkhand- all have somehow refused to give the dues to the visually impaired candidates.
On 6 July 2015 at 18:20, Mohib Anwar Rafay <[email protected]> wrote: > I am delighted and eager to know the stand of supreme court over this > issue. If supreme court decide in favour of the petitioner, it will > have an influence over my petition pending there in Allahabad high > court on the similar issue where UP government didn't provide > reservation for VH persons in civil judge recruitment. > > On 7/6/15, avinash shahi <[email protected]> wrote: > > He's doing a right thing indeed! > > > http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/A-70-blind-person-rejected-for-magistrate-post-despite-being-selected-approach-SC/articleshow/47951414.cms > > CHENNAI: Perhaps emboldened by the success of significant number of > > differently-abled people cracking the civil services examination on > > Saturday, and the case of Beno, the first 100% visually disabled > > person to be absorbed in IFS, a 70% blind person rejected for > > magistrate post despite being selected, is now knocking at the Supreme > > Court doors. > > > > V Surendra Mohan of Tiruvottriyu, who is an assistant public > > prosecutor of the CBI at present, cracked magistrate selection test, > > but was denied appointment by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission > > saying persons with more than 40% visual disability, could not be > > considered for magistrate's post. When challenged, Madras high court > > on June 5 upheld the rejection saying: "Taking into account the nature > > of duties to be performed by a civil judge, government in consultation > > with the high court, had proposed to restrict the applicability of the > > benefit of reservation only to those whose disability ranges from 40 > > per cent to 50 per cent." > > > > The 'proposed amendment', does not deprive the benefit of reservation, > > but only restricts it to those whose percentage of disability is below > > 50%,' the high court reasoned. > > > > Questioning the conclusion, SUrendra Mohan filed a special leave > > petition in the Suprme Court framing a volley of question of law. He > > said the high court had erroneously relied on admittedly a 'proposed > > amendment' to deprive him of his right to be appointed as a civil > > judge on the basis of his partial blindness as provided under the > > Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights > > and Full Participation) Act, 1995. > > > > Wondering whether the high court could proceed on the basis of a > > "proposed amendment" while ignoring the law as it stood, the SLP says > > when there is no other blind candidate available for any of the posts > > sanctioned, is it legal or equitable at all for the authorities to > > have relied on an internal correspondence between the government and > > the high court to ensure that no blind individual was accommodated. > > > > Noting that with 70% blindness, he has been discharging his duties as > > an assistant public prosecutor, he said there is no legal basis for > > excluding him from the civil judge post. In a series of recruitment > > drives over the years, the posts reserved for the blind have gone > > abegging, Surendra Mohan said, adding: "This year as well, as a result > > of the illegal action of the authorities, no blind candidate has been > > recruited, reflecting a complete apathy on their part in discharging > > obligations placed on them by the Constitution and the laws." > > > > According to an April 11, 2005 government order, for civil judge posts > > PB (partially blind) persons are eligible, the SLP said. A GO dated > > August 31, 2012 excludes only those with "complete blindness", and > > hence with 70% partial blindness he cannot in any way be excluded from > > the recruitment, Surendra Mohan has said. > > On 6/8/15, avinash shahi <[email protected]> wrote: > >> This order is utterly disgusting: I contend even hundred per cent > >> blind is fit for a Civil Court judge > >> If this man approaches the Supreme Court and shows them evidences from > >> US, South Africa and UK where blind judges hold reputed posts in > >> Courts; I could hope that the highest Court of the land will pronounce > >> judgment in his favour. Our judiciary should shed its contradictory > >> approach while ensuring employment to persons with blindness. If a > >> blind could become a parliamentarian and join Indian executive then > >> there is no doubt he/she is equally competent to discharge his/her > >> duty as a Civil Court Judge. India's former CCPD was a blind judge and > >> exercised all rights as a Civil Court Judge. > >> > http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/Partial-blindness-shatters-mans-judge-dreams/articleshow/47578609.cms > >> > >> > >> A person suffering from 70% blindness has failed to secure the post of > >> a civil judge despite clearing the written examination and viva voce, > >> as the Madras high court ruled that visual disability of more than the > >> maximum permissible limit of 50% cannot be allowed for civil judges. > >> > >> Dismissing the writ petition of the aspirant V Surendra Mohan, > >> Justice V Ramasubramanian said, "Taking into account the nature of > >> duties to be performed by the civil judge, the government, in > >> consultation with the high court, had proposed to restrict the > >> applicability of the benefit of reservation only to those whose > >> disability ranges from 40-50%. If a person has not less than 40% > >> blindness, he becomes eligible for the benefit of reservation. This > >> fundamental and essential feature of the reservation is not taken away > >> by the proposed amendment. The proposed amendment, while not depriving > >> the benefit of reservation to those who come within the definition of > >> the expression 'person with disability', restricts it to those whose > >> percentage of disability, is 50% less. This cannot be termed as > >> nullifying the effect of the statute." > >> > >> Surendra Mohan, a partially blind person with the percentage of > >> disability at 70%, applied for civil judge post, and passed the > >> written examination. Since he was not included in the list of > >> candidates short-listed for viva voce, he filed the present writ > >> petition for inclusion in the interview list. > >> > >> The court first allowed him to participate in the interview and said > >> the result would be kept in a sealed envelope. But later it passed > >> orders in favour of declaring the result, in purview of a different > >> case. Surendra Mohan secured 178 marks out of 400 in written > >> examination, and 38.25 marks out of 60 in viva voce, it was revealed. > >> > >> A difficulty arose because a government order dated August 8, 2014, > >> had made it clear that the benefit of reservation for the physically > >> challenged is available only to those blind and deaf candidates whose > >> percentage of disability is 40-50%. > >> > >> S Vijay Narayan, senior counsel for Surendra Mohan, then assailed the > >> provision saying it sought to dilute the benefits available to > >> disabled people. Rejecting the submissions, Justice Ramasubramanian > >> further said it was too late to challenge the selection, because, "a > >> person, who participates in a process of selection, cannot later turn > >> around and question the prescription contained in the very > >> notification for recruitment." > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Avinash Shahi > >> Doctoral student at Centre for Law and Governance JNU > >> > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > > > 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.. > -- Warm regards, Subhash Chandra Vashishth Mobile: +91 (11) 9811125521 Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. Consider environment! 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..
