[AI] Policy for Examination

Roopakshi Pathania r_akshi_tgk at yahoo.com
Thu Feb 14 11:59:47 EST 2008


Not only this 50 percentage limit is ludicrous, but
also it makes the securing of such a scribe even more
difficulte. Its not possible to find people in this
percentage category.


--- Manish Agrawal <magrawal at sapient.com> wrote:

> I believe the 50% limit (that has been arbitrarily
> raised to 60%) is
> completely discriminatory and we should argue to get
> this removed.
> The SBI contention to me sounds arbitrary to the
> extent of being
> paradoxical in the sense that they believe 50% marks
> is bad enough that
> the scribe would not be unduely able to help the
> candidate while 50% is
> good enough that the scribe can sufficiently address
> all the
> requirements of a scribe.
>  where did this 50% bar come from? different
> examining bodies have
> different marking schemes for different educational
> levels and subjects.
> e.g. 50% is average marks in arts but even 85% is
> not good enough in
> mathematics in class X.
> The fact that this is suggested by the CCD is all
> the more unfortunate
> because CCD would be considered the most scientific
> source of disability
> related guidance. However, this 50% guidance is not
> related to a
> disabled person. It is related to the ability of an
> able bodied person
> acting as the scribe. This guidance, if at all,
> should come from an
> education board based on scientifically collected
> data.
> 
> I noticed in the RBI guidelines, this limit is not
> present.
> The RBI on the other hand places the condition of
> one and the same
> scribe to be used for all exams. This again is
> arbitrary. If preventing
> cheating is the motive, then an invigilator should
> be provided (which is
> already done I guess).
> 
>  These guidelines are wrong in their very intent.
> The guidelines should
> be aimed at solving the problem of enabling people
> with disabilities to
> integrate with the main stream. 
> These guidelines, on the other hand, intend to set
> up barriers against
> cheating and fraud, which is an important but
> completely different
> problem.
> 
> The cheating and fraud guidelines should be a
> separate broader circular
> that is mostly common to all candidates.
> 
> my 2 cents
> 
> -Manish  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accessindia-bounces at accessindia.org.in
> [mailto:accessindia-bounces at accessindia.org.in] On
> Behalf Of Pamnani
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 3:43 AM
> To: accessindia at accessindia.org.in
> Subject: [AI] Policy for Examination
> 
> This is the view of State Bank of India.   
> 
> State Bank of India
> 
> kanchan 
> 
> Central Recruitment & Promotion Department, 
> 
> Corporate Centre, Tulsiani Chambers
> 
> 1st Floor (West Wing), 212, 
> 
> Free Press Journal Marg, 
> 
> Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021.
> 
> Tel. No.: 91 - 022 - 2282 O427.
> 
> Fax: 91 - 022 - 2282 0411.
> 
> E-mail: crpd at sbi.co.in
> 
> Under Secretary to the Govt. of India,
> 
> Ministry of Finance,
> 
> Department of Financial Services,
> 
> Jeevan Deep, 
> 
> 10, Parliament Street,
> 
> New Delhi-110001.
> 
>             
> 
> No. CRPD/AB/2007/891
> Dated: November 14, 2007
> 
>  
> 
> Dear Sir,
> 
>  
> 
> Notice of Hearing U/S 63 of The Persons With
> Disabilities Act 1995 Case
> No. 3929/2007.
> 
>  
> 
> We refer to your letter No. F.3/6/2007-SCT (B) dated
> 6th November 2007
> in the captioned matter.
> 
>  
> 
> In this connection, we have to advise that the
> scribes are allowed to
> help the persons with visual/locomotive impairment 
> to read the question
> paper and write the answers relating to concerned
> examinations. Until
> July 2007, we had allowed scribes on following terms
> and conditions to
> assist the visually/locomotor impaired candidates in
> terms of guidelines
> issued by the Office of the Chief Commissioner for
> Disabilities vide
> letter no. 27- UP(38)/C.C.D/2000/5751 dated
> 10.05.2000 (Annexure 'A')-
> 
>  
> 
>   1.. Scribe/Writer must be on grade junior in
> academic qualification
> from the candidate.
>   2.. Scribe/Writer should be one possessing 50% or
> less marks.
>   3.. Scribe/Writer should be from academic
> discipline other than that
> of the candidate.
>   4.. Scribe/Writer should be arranged by the
> candidate at their own
> cost (discretion has been given to the examining
> authority).
>  
> 
> In the meantime, we received a notice from the Dy.
> Chief Commissioner,
> In the Court of the Chief Commissioner for Persons
> With Disabilities on
> a complaint filed by the National Association for
> the Blind (Annexure
> 'B'), wherein the Court took cognizance of raising
> of the limit for
> scribes to 60% by some Banks. Earlier, the
> complainant had requested us
> to raise/liberalize the criteria on the basis of
> their letter no.
> EMP:SVK/2007/64 dated May 15, 2007, wherein they
> provided us with a copy
> of Court Order No. PIL No. 129of2003 and        
> Maharashtra Government
> directives vide circular no. 06-07/2951 dated
> December 20, 2006
> (Annexure 'C'). The following guidelines have been
> laid down by the
> Maharashtra Government therein relating to
> qualification of a scribe-  
> 
> a)      It is desirable that the candidate and the
> scribe are from the
> same stream.
> 
> b)      In case the candidate avails the services of
> his/her own
> scribe/writer, the scribe/writer should be one grade
> junior in academic
> qualification than the candidate if from the same
> stream. However, this
> condition shall not apply if the scribe/writer is
> from a different
> stream.
> 
> c)      No other restriction should be imposed on
> the selection of a
> scribe/writer.
> 
>  
> 
> It would appear-from the order that the above
> guidelines 
=== message truncated ===



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs




More information about the AccessIndia mailing list