[AI] Appoint visually handicapped person who cleared IAS exam'

Rakesh Kumar Gupta rkgd1964 at gmail.com
Thu Jul 8 22:19:54 EDT 2010


Hello,
Could you send me its URL or judgement through attachments?
I will highly be obliged to you for the same.
Regards,
Rakesh.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "akhilesh" <akhil.akhil29 at gmail.com>
To: <accessindia at accessindia.org.in>
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: [AI] Appoint visually handicapped person who cleared IAS exam'


> Hello,
> Pasting the judgment in its entirety.
> Thankyou,
> Akhilesh.
> Here it goes:
>
> IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
>
>             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
>
>      SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.14889 OF 2009
>
>
> Govt. of India
> through Secretary & Anr.                 .. Petitioners
>
>                           Vs.
>
> Ravi Prakash Gupta & Anr.                .. Respondents
>
>
>
>
>                    J U D G M E N T
>
>
> ALTAMAS KABIR, J.
>
>
>
> 1.    The Government of India, through the Secretary,
>
> Ministry    of     Personnel     &    Public    Grievances,
>
> Department of Personnel and Training and through
>
> the   Secretary,    Ministry     of   Social   Justice    and
>
> Empowerment, has filed this Special Leave Petition
>
>                                                                     2
>
>
>
> against the judgment and order dated 25th February,
>
> 2009,    passed     by    the    Delhi     High    Court     in     Writ
>
> Petition (Civil) No.5429 of 2008, allowing the Writ
>
> Petition    and    setting       aside     the    order     dated    7th
>
> April, 2008, passed by the Central Administrative
>
> Tribunal,       Principal       Bench,    New     Delhi,    in      O.A.
>
> No.1397    of     2007,   filed     by     the    Respondent        No.1
>
> herein,     and    allowing        the     reliefs     prayed        for
>
> therein.
>
>
> 2.      The Respondent No.1 is a visually handicapped
>
> person who suffers from 100% blindness. He appeared
>
> in the Civil Services Examination conducted by the
>
> Union Public Service Commission in the year 2006.
>
> After    clearing    the    preliminary          examination,        the
>
> Respondent No.1 appeared for the main examination
>
> in October, 2006 and was declared successful and
>
> was,    thereafter,       called    for     a    personality        test
>
> scheduled    for    1st   May,     2007.         Pursuant    to     such
>
> interview, the names of 474 candidates who were
>
>                                                                         3
>
>
>
> selected were released on 14th May, 2007. In the
>
> said list, the name of one other visually impaired
>
> candidate also figured.             The Respondent No.1 was at
>
> serial no.5 of the merit list prepared for visually
>
> handicapped     candidates,            who     had    been     declared
>
> successful    in   the      examination.         According        to 
> the
>
> Respondent No.1, although there were more than 5
>
> vacancies    available       in        the   visually       handicapped
>
> category, only one post was offered under the said
>
> category     and      he     was,        therefore,         not 
> given
>
> appointment despite the vacancies available.
>
>
> 3.   Being    aggrieved           by     the    manner       in 
> which
>
> selections     were        made     for      appointment          in 
> the
>
> visually handicapped category, the Respondent No.1
>
> filed a Writ Petition, being Writ Petition (Civil)
>
> No.5338 of 2007, before the Delhi High Court. 
> The
>
> same was subsequently withdrawn since it was the
>
> Central     Administrative         Tribunal          only    which 
> had
>
> jurisdiction to entertain such matters at the first
>
>                                                                      4
>
>
>
> instance.         The     Respondent          No.1,        accordingly,
>
> withdrew      the       Writ     Petition,       with      liberty     to
>
> approach      the       Central        Administrative         Tribunal.
>
> Thereafter, he filed an application under Section
>
> 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which
>
> was registered as O.A. No.1397 of 2007, staking his
>
> claim   for      appointment          under   the     reservation      of
>
> vacancies        for    disabled        categories      provided      for
>
> under Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities
>
> (Equal Opportunities, Protection, Rights and Full
>
> Participation) Act, 1995, hereinafter referred to
>
> as   `the        Disabilities          Act,   1995'.        The     basic
>
> contention of the Respondent No.1 was that since
>
> the aforesaid Act came into force in 1996 providing
>
> a statutory mandate for reservation of 3% of the
>
> posts     available            for     persons      suffering        from
>
> different        kinds     of        disabilities     enumerated       in
>
> Section     33    of     the    Disabilities        Act,    1995,    such
>
> reservation ought to have been in force with effect
>
> from the date on which the Act came into force.
>
>                                                                      5
>
>
>
> According to the Respondent No.1, if the vacancies
>
> were   to   be    considered      from    the    year    1996,    then
>
> instead of one vacancy being declared for the year
>
> in    question,    there      should     have    been    at   least 
> 7
>
> vacancies        from     the      reserved       categories          of
>
> disabilities which were interchangeable.                      It was,
>
> therefore, the case of the Respondent No.1 that
>
> having regard to the number of appointments made
>
> with    regard    to    the   disabled     categories         reserved
>
> under Section 33 of the Disabilities Act, 1995,
>
> since the Act came into force, there were at least
>
> 7 posts which could be filled up in the year 2006.
>
> However,    in    that     year    only    one    post    from    this
>
> category had been filled.                It was, therefore, the
>
> case of the Respondent No.1 that being at serial
>
> no.5 of the list of successful candidates amongst
>
> the    physically       impaired       candidates,       there   were
>
> sufficient number of vacancies in which he could
>
> have been appointed and that the authorities had
>
> acted contrary to the provisions of the above Act
>
>                                                             6
>
>
>
> upon the faulty reasoning that the vacancies in the
>
> reserved posts could not be declared, without first
>
> identifying the same for the purposes of Sections
>
> 32 and 33 of the Disabilities Act, 1995.
>
>
> 4.     The case of the Respondent No.1 having been
>
> negated by the Tribunal, the Respondent No.1 as
>
> indicated hereinbefore, moved the High Court and
>
> the    High     Court,   upon   accepting   the    Respondent
>
> No.1's case, set aside the order of the Central
>
> Administrative Tribunal dated 7th April, 2008, and
>
> allowed the Respondent No.1's O.A. No.1397 of 2007
>
> filed before the Tribunal. While allowing the said
>
> application, the High Court, upon observing that a
>
> clear vacancy was available to which the Respondent
>
> No.1    could    be   accommodated   on   the   basis   of   his
>
> position in the merit list, issued a mandamus to
>
> the Respondent No.1 to offer him an appointment to
>
> one of the reserved posts by issuing an appropriate
>
> appointment letter, within six weeks from the date
>
>                                                             7
>
>
>
> of   the   order.    Certain   consequential     orders     were
>
> also passed together with cost of Rs.25,000/- to be
>
> paid by the Petitioner herein.
>
>
> 5.   On behalf of the Government of India, which is
>
> the Petitioner herein, learned Additional Solicitor
>
> General,    Ms.   Indira     Jaising,   submitted   that     the
>
> submissions advanced on behalf of the Respondent
>
> No.1 which had been accepted by the High Court,
>
> were not tenable and that the Government of India
>
> had been actively involved in complying with the
>
> provisions of the Disabilities Act, 1995, after it
>
> came into force.        The learned ASG contended that
>
> the Government of India had been making reservation
>
> for physically handicapped persons in Group `C' and
>
> `D' posts from 1977 and in order to consider the
>
> growing     demand    from     the   visually     handicapped
>
> persons, a meeting for identification of jobs in
>
> various    Ministries/Departments        was    scheduled     in
>
> 1985 and 416 such posts were identified in Group
>
>                                                                         8
>
>
>
> `A' and `B' posts. In 1986, an Office Memorandum
>
> was    issued        by    the     Department         of    Personnel 
> &
>
> Training   (DoPT)          providing       for       preference     to 
> be
>
> given to handicapped person for these posts. 
> In
>
> 1988, another Office Memorandum was issued by the
>
> Government           of     India         indicating         that 
> the
>
> identification done in the year 1986 would remain
>
> valid till the same was modified.                          After the Act
>
> came    into     force       in      1996,       a     further      Office
>
> Memorandum       was       issued,        whereby      reservation 
> of
>
> physically handicapped persons in identified Group
>
> `A' and Group `B' posts/services was extended to
>
> posts which were to be filled up through direct
>
> recruitment. Learned ASG submitted that in 1999 the
>
> Ministry        of        Social      Justice          &     Empowerment
>
> constituted an Expert Committee to identify/review
>
> posts in categories `A, `B', `C' and `D', in which
>
> recommendations           were     made    for       identification 
> of
>
> posts for the visually handicapped persons. 
> The
>
> report of the Expert Committee was accepted by the
>
>                                                                       9
>
>
>
> Ministry in 2001 and posts were duly identified for
>
> persons    with         disabilities.     Learned      ASG,    however,
>
> made it clear that the 416 posts, which had been
>
> identified         in    1985,    did    not    include      All     India
>
> Services and that for the first time in 2005, the
>
> posts    of    the       Indian   Administrative        Service       were
>
> identified         in    compliance      with   the    provisions       of
>
> Section       33    of    the     Disabilities        Act,    1995     and
>
> pursuant      to    such     identification,          the    posts    were
>
> reserved and filled up. Ms. Jaising also submitted
>
> that    reservation         upto    3%     of   vacancies       in     the
>
> reserved posts were, accordingly, identified with
>
> effect from 2006 and the claim of the Respondent
>
> No.1 for appointment on the basis of the argument
>
> that the reservation should have taken effect from
>
> 1996 when the Act came into force, was liable to be
>
> rejected.
>
>
> 6.     Appearing in-person, Mr. Ravi Prakash Gupta,
>
> the Respondent No.1 herein, strongly defended the
>
>                                                                      10
>
>
>
> impugned judgment of the High Court and urged that
>
> the Special Leave Petition filed by the Government
>
> of India was liable to be dismissed.                       Mr. Gupta
>
> submitted     that    the    fact    that     he    was   completely
>
> blind   was    known    to     the    Petitioners         and     their
>
> respective     authorities       from      the     very   beginning,
>
> since he had annexed his blindness certificate with
>
> his original application in the proforma provided
>
> by the Union Public Service Commission (U.P.S.C.),
>
> which showed the percentage of his blindness as
>
> 100%.   However,      the     main    thrust       of   Mr.     Gupta's
>
> submissions    was     that    when     the      Disabilities        Act,
>
> 1995, came into force in 1996, it was the duty of
>
> the   concerned      authorities      to      reserve     3%    of   the
>
> total vacancies available immediately thereafter.
>
> The plea of non-identification of posts prior to
>
> the year 2006 was only an attempt to justify the
>
> failure of the Petitioners to act in terms of the
>
> Disabilities Act, 1995.              Mr. Gupta submitted that
>
> the High Court had negated such contention made on
>
>                                                            11
>
>
>
> behalf of the Petitioners and rightly directed the
>
> Petitioners to calculate the number of vacancies in
>
> terms of Section 33 of the above Act from 1996 when
>
> the said Act came into force.
>
>
> 7.    Mr. Gupta then submitted that in terms of the
>
> Department's OM No.3635/3/2004 dated 29th December,
>
> 2005, reservations have been earmarked and should
>
> have been made available from 1996 itself and in
>
> the   event   the   vacancies   could   not   be   filled   up
>
> owing to lack of candidates, the same could have
>
> been carried forward for two years after which the
>
> same could have been treated as lapsed.            Mr. Gupta
>
> submitted that although the Petitioners were fully
>
> aware of the said Office Memorandum, they chose not
>
> to act on the basis thereof and as admitted on
>
> behalf of the Government of India, the IAS cadre
>
> was identified in 2006 for the purposes of Section
>
> 33 of the Disabilities Act, 1995.        In fact, the Act
>
> remained on paper as far as visually challenged
>
> 
> 12
>
>
>
> candidates        were     concerned          and     only        after 
> the
>
> judgments of the Delhi High Court in the case of
>
> Ravi Kumar Arora and in the case of T.D. Dinakar
>
> were delivered, that the identification process was
>
> started.         Mr.     Gupta    submitted         that     it    would 
> be
>
> pertinent to mention that the two above-mentioned
>
> candidates        were    appointed       in    the       Civil 
> Services
>
> without         waiting     for       identification              of 
> their
>
> respective        services       on     the    orders      of      the 
> High
>
> Court.
>
>
> 8.   Mr.    Gupta        submitted       that       the    plea     of 
> non-
>
> identification of posts in the IAS till the year
>
> 2006 could not absolve the petitioners of their
>
> statutory obligation to provide for reservation in
>
> terms of Section 33 of the aforesaid Act.
>
>
> 9.   During the course of hearing, leave had been
>
> granted to one A.V. Prema Nath and one Mr. Rajesh
>
> Singh      to     intervene        in     the        proceedings. 
> The
>
> submissions made by the Respondent No.1 have been
>
>                                                        13
>
>
>
> repeated and reiterated on behalf of the Intervenor
>
> No.1, Shri A.V. Prema Nath by A. Sumathi, learned
>
> Advocate.   His written submissions are embellished
>
> with references to various decisions of this Court,
>
> including the decision in Francis Coralie Mullin
>
> vs. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi & Ors.
>
> [(1981) 1 SCC 608], regarding the right to life
>
> under Article 21 of the Constitution.            The main
>
> thrust of the submissions is with regard to the
>
> denial of rights to persons with disabilities under
>
> Section 33 of the Disabilities Act, 1995, which
>
> prevent them from enjoying their fundamental rights
>
> to equality and the right to live, by the State.
>
>
> 10. More detailed submissions were made by Mr. S.K.
>
> Rungta, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of
>
> the Intervenor No.2, Mr. Rajesh Singh, and it was
>
> also   sought   to   be   pointed   out   that   the   said
>
> intervenor was himself a candidate from amongst the
>
> visually impaired candidates and had, in fact, been
>
> 
> 14
>
>
>
> placed at serial no.3 in rank in the merit list for
>
> visually      impaired       candidates             in     the 
> Central
>
> Services Examinations, 2006, whereas the Respondent
>
> No.1 had been placed at serial no.5.                             In other
>
> words, what was sought to be projected was that
>
> Shri      Rajesh     Singh       had        a     better     claim 
> for
>
> appointment        from    amongst      the        visually       impaired
>
> candidates over the Respondent No.1 and that if the
>
> vacancies     in    the     reserved            category   were        to 
> be
>
> calculated     from       1996   and        even    from    2001, 
> when
>
> identification        of     posts      in        respect        of 
> Civil
>
> Services forming part of the IAS Cadre was sought
>
> to be effected and a notification to that effect
>
> was issued, the Respondent No.1 could not have been
>
> appointed.
>
>
> 11. It was further submitted that in the decision
>
> of this Court in The National Federation of Blind
>
> vs. Union Public Service Commission & Ors. [(1993)
>
> 2   SCC   411],    the     demand      by       blind    candidates 
> for
>
>                                                                    15
>
>
>
> being permitted to write the examination in Braille
>
> script, or with the help of a Scribe, for posts in
>
> the IAS was duly accepted for recruitment to the
>
> lowest    posts     in    the    service         reserved   for    such
>
> persons.       It was also held that blind and partially
>
> blind    persons    were       eligible      for    appointment      in
>
> Government      posts.          It   was     submitted      that    the
>
> submissions made on behalf of the Petitioners that
>
> the   notification        in    respect     of     the   services    in
>
> respect of the Group `A' and `B' services in the
>
> IAS in 2005 was not a fresh exercise, but only an
>
> attempt        to   consolidate            and     strengthen       the
>
> identification already available and that such an
>
> exercise could at best be said to be enabling and
>
> supplementary action for the smooth implementation
>
> of the statutory provisions containing the scheme
>
> of reservation for persons with disabilities, could
>
> not be taken as an excuse to postpone the benefit
>
> which    had    already    accrued     to        candidates   falling
>
> within 3% of the vacancies indicated in Section 33
>
>                                                             16
>
>
>
> of the Disabilities Act, 1995.             It was also urged
>
> that after the issuance of OM dated 29th December,
>
> 2005 and OM dated 26th April, 2006, there was hardly
>
> any room for the Government of India to deny the
>
> benefit    of     reservation         to      persons      with
>
> disabilities,     including     the        blind,   in     Civil
>
> Services encompassing the IAS from the year 1996
>
> itself.    Furthermore, since the Act itself did not
>
> make any distinction between Group `A' and Group
>
> `B' services and Group `C' and Group `D' services,
>
> it was not available to the Government of India to
>
> contend   that   since   identification       had   been    done
>
> only for Group `C' and Group `D' services, prior to
>
> the year 2005, reservation in respect of Group `A'
>
> and `B' services, which include the IAS, for which
>
> identification was commenced in 2005, would only be
>
> available thereafter.
>
>                                                                 17
>
>
>
> 12. On     behalf    of     the   Intervenor     No.2,     it    was
>
> submitted    that     the    Special     Leave    Petition       was
>
> liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
>
>
> 13. We have examined the matter with great care
>
> having regard to the nature of the issues involved
>
> in relation to the intention of the legislature to
>
> provide      for      integration        of      persons        with
>
> disabilities into the social main stream and to lay
>
> down a strategy for comprehensive development and
>
> programmes     and        services   and      equalization        of
>
> opportunities for persons with disabilities and for
>
> their      education,        training,        employment         and
>
> rehabilitation amongst other responsibilities.                    We
>
> have considered the matter from the said angle to
>
> ensure that the object of the Disabilities Act,
>
> 1995, which is to give effect to the proclamation
>
> on   the   full     participation      and    equality     of    the
>
> people with disabilities in the Asian and Pacific
>
> Region, is fulfilled.
>
>                                                                      18
>
>
>
> 14.   That    the    Respondent       No.1       is    eligible      for
>
> appointment in the Civil Services after having been
>
> declared     successful       and    having        been    placed      at
>
> serial no.5 in the disabled category of visually
>
> impaired candidates, cannot be denied.                         The only
>
> question     which    is    relevant       for     our    purpose     is
>
> whether      on     account    of     the        failure       of    the
>
> Petitioners to identify posts for persons falling
>
> within the ambit of Section 33 of the Disabilities
>
> Act, 1995, the Respondent No.1 should be deprived
>
> of the benefit of his selection purportedly on the
>
> ground that there were no available vacancies in
>
> the said category.            The other question which is
>
> connected with the first            question       and    which      also
>
> requires      our     consideration           is       whether       the
>
> reservation       provided    for     in    Section       33    of   the
>
> Disabilities         Act,     1995,        was        dependent        on
>
> identification of posts suitable for appointment in
>
> such categories, as has been sought to be contended
>
> 
> 19
>
>
>
> on behalf of the Government of India in the instant
>
> case.
>
>
> 15. Although, the Delhi High Court has dealt with
>
> the   aforesaid        questions,      we    wish    to    add       a 
> few
>
> observations of our own in regard to the objects
>
> which     the     legislature       intended        to    achieve 
> by
>
> enacting the aforesaid Act.             The submission made on
>
> behalf     of     the    Union    of        India    regarding 
> the
>
> implementation of the provisions of Section 33 of
>
> the      Disabilities          Act,         1995,        only        after
>
> identification          of    posts         suitable       for 
> such
>
> appointment, under Section 32 thereof, runs counter
>
> to the legislative intent with which the Act was
>
> enacted.        To accept such a submission would amount
>
> to accepting a situation where the provisions of
>
> Section    33     of    the   aforesaid       Act    could      be 
> kept
>
> deferred    indefinitely         by    bureaucratic          inaction.
>
> Such a stand taken by the petitioners before the
>
> High Court was rightly rejected.                    Accordingly, the
>
>                                                                       20
>
>
>
> submission made on behalf of the Union of India
>
> that identification of Grade `A' and `B' posts in
>
> the I.A.S. was undertaken after the year 2005 is
>
> not of much substance.               As has been pointed out by
>
> the High Court, neither Section 32 nor Section 33
>
> of the aforesaid Act makes any distinction with
>
> regard to Grade `A', `B', `C' and `D' posts.                          They
>
> only    speak      of     identification       and    reservation      of
>
> posts       for    people    with     disabilities,       though      the
>
> proviso to Section 33 does empower the appropriate
>
> Government         to    exempt     any   establishment       from     the
>
> provisions of the said Section, having regard to
>
> the type of work carried on in any department or
>
> establishment.            No such exemption has been pleaded
>
> or     brought      to      our     notice    on     behalf     of    the
>
> petitioners.
>
>
> 16. It is only logical that, as provided in Section
>
> 32     of    the        aforesaid     Act,    posts      have    to    be
>
> identified         for    reservation        for   the   purposes      of
>
>                                                                21
>
>
>
> Section 33, but such identification was meant to be
>
> simultaneously       undertaken        with   the   coming     into
>
> operation    of     the     Act,   to    give   effect    to    the
>
> provisions of Section 33.               The legislature never
>
> intended the provisions of Section 32 of the Act to
>
> be used as a tool to deny the benefits of Section
>
> 33   to     these        categories     of    disabled     persons
>
> indicated therein.           Such a submission strikes at
>
> the foundation of the provisions relating to the
>
> duty cast upon the appropriate Government to make
>
> appointments        in     every      establishment      (emphasis
>
> added).     For the sake of reference, Sections 32 and
>
> 33 of the Disabilities Act, 1995, are reproduced
>
> hereinbelow :
>
>
>     "32.Identification of posts which can be
>     reserved for persons with disabilities.-
>     Appropriate Governments shall -
>
>     (a) Identify posts, in the establishments,
>         which can be reserved for the persons
>         with disability;
>
>     (b) At periodical intervals not exceeding
>         three years, review the list of posts
>
>                                                       22
>
>
>
>        identified and up-date the list taking
>        into consideration the developments in
>        technology.
>
>    33.Reservation     of     posts.-    Every
>    appropriate Government shall appoint in
>    every establishment such percentage of
>    vacancies not less than three per cent for
>    persons   or   class   of    persons  with
>    disability of which one per cent each
>    shall be reserved for persons suffering
>    from-
>
>    (i) blindness or low vision;
>    (ii) hearing impairment;
>    (iii) locomotor disability       or     cerebral
>    palsy,
>
>    in   the    posts   identified        for   each
>    disability:
>
>    Provided, that the appropriate Government
>    may, having regard to the type of work
>    carried   on   in    any   department   or
>    establishment by notification subject to
>    such conditions, if any, as may be
>    specified in such notification, exempt any
>    establishment from the provisions of this
>    section."
>
>
> 17. While it cannot be denied that unless posts are
>
> identified for the purposes of Section 33 of the
>
> aforesaid Act, no appointments from the reserved
>
> categories contained therein can be made, and that
>
>                                                               23
>
>
>
> to such extent the provisions of Section 33 are
>
> dependent on Section 32 of the Act, as submitted by
>
> the learned ASG, but the extent of such dependence
>
> would be for the purpose of making appointments and
>
> not for the purpose of making reservation. In other
>
> words, reservation under Section 33 of the Act is
>
> not dependent on identification, as urged on behalf
>
> of the Union of India, though a duty has been cast
>
> upon        the   appropriate       Government        to     make
>
> appointments in the number of posts reserved for
>
> the three categories mentioned in Section 33 of the
>
> Act    in    respect   of   persons    suffering      from     the
>
> disabilities      spelt     out   therein.       In    fact,     a
>
> situation has also been noticed where on account of
>
> non-availability of candidates some of the reserved
>
> posts could remain vacant in a given year.                     For
>
> meeting such eventualities, provision was made to
>
> carry forward such vacancies for two years after
>
> which they would lapse.           Since in the instant case
>
> such a situation did not arise and posts were not
>
>                                                                      24
>
>
>
> reserved under Section 33                 of       the    Disabilities
>
> Act,     1995,      the question of carrying forward of
>
> vacancies or lapse thereof, does not arise.
>
>
> 18. The     various       decisions       cited      by   A.   Sumathi,
>
> learned    Advocate        for    the    first      intervenor,      Shri
>
> A.V. Prema Nath, are not of assistance in the facts
>
> of this case, which depends on its own facts and
>
> interpretation        of    Sections          32    and   33   of    the
>
> Disabilities Act, 1995.
>
>
> 19. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with
>
> the    judgment     of    the    High    Court      impugned    in   the
>
> Special     Leave        Petition       which      is,    accordingly,
>
> dismissed    with        costs.         All    interim     orders    are
>
> vacated.     The petitioners are given eight weeks'
>
> time from today to give effect to the directions of
>
> the High Court.
>
>
>           25
>
>
>
>
> 20. The petitioners shall pay the cost of these
>
> proceedings   to   the   respondent   No.1            assessed
>           at
>
> Rs.20,000/-, within four weeks from date.
>
>
>
>
>
> ................................................J.
>                                               (ALTAMAS KABIR)
>
>
>
>
> ................................................J.
>                                               (CYRIAC JOSEPH)
> New Delhi
> Dated:7th July, 2010.
>
>
>
>
> On 7/8/10, jayinfotech <jayinfotech at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> great news. hope some good will come from order
>>
>>
>> amit
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: accessindia-bounces at accessindia.org.in
>> [mailto:accessindia-bounces at accessindia.org.in] On Behalf Of pradeep 
>> banakar
>> Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 10:07 AM
>> To: accessindia
>> Subject: [AI] Appoint visually handicapped person who cleared IAS exam'
>>
>> Appoint visually handicapped person who cleared IAS exam'
>> J. Venkatesan
>> http://thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article505093.ece
>> New Delhi, July 8, 2010
>> The Supreme Court on Wednesday came to the rescue of a visually
>> handicapped person who cleared the 2006 Civil Services examination and
>> the interview but was denied employment.
>>
>> It directed the Government of India to appoint him under the
>> provisions of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,
>> Protection, Rights and Full Participation) Act.
>>
>> A Bench consisting of Justices Altamas Kabir and Cyriac Joseph
>> rejected the Centre's contention that since posts for the visually
>> handicapped had not been identified, no appointment could be provided
>> to respondent Ravi Prakash Gupta. Mr. Gupta, who is 100 per cent
>> blind, himself argued the case.
>>
>> Writing the judgment, Justice Kabir said the fact that the respondent
>> was eligible for appointment in the civil services after having been
>> declared successful and placed at Serial No. 5 in the Disabled
>> Category of the visually impaired candidates could not be denied.
>>
>> The Centre's contention on implementation of the provisions of Section
>> 33 of the Disabilities Act only after identification of posts suitable
>> for such appointment "runs counter to the legislative intent with
>> which the Act was enacted."
>>
>> The Bench said that "to accept such a submission would amount to
>> accepting a situation where the provisions of Section 33 of the Act
>> could be kept deferred indefinitely by bureaucratic inaction. As has
>> been pointed out by the High Court, neither Section 32 nor Section 33
>> makes any distinction with regard to Grade 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D'
>> posts.
>>
>> They only speak of identification and reservation of posts for people
>> with disabilities, though the proviso to Section 33 does empower the
>> appropriate government to exempt any establishment from the provision
>> of the said Section, having regard to the type of work carried on in
>> any department or establishment."
>>
>> The judges said, "The Legislature never intended the provisions of
>> Section 32 of the Act to be used as a tool to deny the benefits of
>> Section 33 to these categories of disabled persons indicated therein."
>>
>> In the instant case, the Delhi High Court set aside the orders of the
>> Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting the relief sought for by Mr.
>> Gupta. It directed the Centre to grant him appointment as there was
>> sufficient number of vacancies in which he could be appointed. The
>> present appeal by the Centre is directed against this order.
>>
>> The Supreme Court Bench, while declining to interfere with the High
>> Court order, granted the Centre eight weeks for complying with the
>> directions.
>>
>> Disapproving of the Centre's stand, the Bench imposed Rs.20,000 costs
>> on it to be paid in four weeks.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----
>>
>> Bench asks government to give him job under the Disabilities Act
>> Rejects Centre's contention that Act could be implemented only after
>> identification of posts
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----
>>
>> Voice your thoughts in the blog to discuss the Rights of persons with
>> disability bill at:
>> http://www.accessindia.org.in/harish/blog.htm
>>
>> To unsubscribe send a message to accessindia-request at accessindia.org.in 
>> 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
>>
>>
>> Voice your thoughts in the blog to discuss the Rights of persons with
>> disability bill at:
>> http://www.accessindia.org.in/harish/blog.htm
>>
>> To unsubscribe send a message to accessindia-request at accessindia.org.in 
>> 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
>>
>
> Voice your thoughts in the blog to discuss the Rights of persons with 
> disability bill at:
> http://www.accessindia.org.in/harish/blog.htm
>
> To unsubscribe send a message to accessindia-request at accessindia.org.in 
> 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 





More information about the AccessIndia mailing list