[AI] a highcourt order regarding handicap quota

agesh kumar chess.agesh at gmail.com
Tue Aug 3 11:24:42 EDT 2010


On 7/18/10, raghuraman <thinkdontblink at gmail.com> wrote:
> Chennai
>   
>
> Implement 3 p.c. quota for physically challenged: court
>
>
>
>
> K.T. Sangameswaran
>
>
>
>
> For all posts, including those in groups ‘A' and ‘B'
>
>
>
>
>
> CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has made it clear that the government should
> implement three per cent reservation in all posts, including those in groups
> ‘A' and `B' and for all future recruitments under the Persons with
> Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
> Participation) Act.
> Justice N. Paul Vasanthakumar passed the order on a writ petition filed by a
> physically challenged person with locomotor disability. He also restrained
> authorities from inviting applications in future for filling the posts
> without reserving three per cent for the physically challenged.
> In his petition, G. Sureshkumar stated that the TNPSC issued an
> advertisement in July 2005 for recruitment of 1295 Assistant Surgeons
> (General) and 530 Assistant Surgeons (Speciality). He sought quashing of the
> notification citing the note embedded in it that “3 per cent
> reservation for physically handicapped persons will not apply to this
> recruitment.”
> He had secured high marks in the written test and was called for the
> interview. Only on account of failure to make the reservation, he was not
> selected.
> He sought a consequent direction to authorities to follow the reservation
> for persons with disability, consider him under reservation for persons with
> locomotor disability or cerebral palsy as per the provisions of the Act and
> recruit him.
> In its counter, TNPSC contended that General Rules stated that reservation
> for physically challenged candidates should be made applicable in respect of
> posts in groups ‘C' and ‘D' alone. The government had issued
> orders in February 1988 in respect of Executive Posts in ‘A' and
> ‘B' categories and no reservation needed to be made for the
> differently-abled.
> It also said that by a Health Department G.O. of July 1999, posts of
> Assistant Surgeon (both clinical and non-clinical), Medical Officer (Siddha)
> had been classified as Executive Posts. Therefore, no reservation was made
> in the notification.
> Mr. Justice Paul Vasanthakumar, citing rulings of the Supreme Court and the
> High Court, said in the light of the Supreme Court judgment, the
> authorities' stand could not be sustained. They could not now rely on a
> proviso to Rule 22 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules as
> the rule had been declared ultra vires by a Division Bench.
> The judge said that the petitioner's application submitted under the general
> category having been rejected on the ground of not signing it and the said
> decision having been upheld by the Supreme Court in a connected matter, he
> was unable to give any relief to the petitioner in respect of the selection
> already made.
>
> cheers raghu
>
>
> 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
>
I am ageshkumar from Kerala i read your mail about chennai high court order.
 is there any possibility to get the original court judgement if
available please forward to my mail chess.agesh at gmail.com or send the
path to get it.




More information about the AccessIndia mailing list