[AI] Sub: Stern Action Sought Against The UGC for violating the Office Memorandum Issued by the Government of India for Conducting Examination for Persons with Disabilities

pankaj Singh kushwaha justicewithall at gmail.com
Thu Jul 2 06:27:10 PDT 2015

after reading the debate,  it has been emerged that there are some
people who want lot of restriction on the  scribe and other
facilities. but they are not concern that we shoulc achieve a equal
condition like others.  this is completely arbitrary that  the
candidates has to produce writer along with certificate to the
examination centre. why, the guys who are advocating for
institutional restriction are not  advising to the institututes like
CBSE to take cross checking after the exam and produce a data why many
condates were appeared in thi this exam and  they used this type of
writers. this  provision will  do two thinks, first, it shall disclose
that who has used which type of writers and how the  institutions have
provided? because these few persons are so concern about malpractices
rather than implementation.
second thing which I want to say on this place, during the exam
period, the students without disability are getting good environment
while the blind candidates are facing lot oftrouble likeroom facility,
proper place to sit, question paper on time, etc. as ahppend in my
case, I got question paper after 10 minutes, when, I expressed my
anger they sai I forgot. finally, according to me, this is
challengeable that the blind candidate must visit examination centre
before one day exam.  On 7/2/15, avinash shahi
<shahi88avinash at gmail.com> wrote:
> Friends
> As a first procedural prerequisite, I've registered complaint against The
> Interested candidates could also do the same to build pressure,then we
> will go to the High Court if need arises.
> To
> The
> Court of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
> Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment
> Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities
> Sarojini House, 6, Bhagwan Dass Road, New Delhi - 110 001
> Sub: Stern Action Sought Against The UGC for violating the Office
> Memorandum Issued by the Government of India for Conducting
> Examination for Persons with Disabilities
> Respected Hon’ble Court of The Chief Commissioner for Persons with
> Disabilities
> I am knocking at your door to apprise about the humiliation meted out
> to the candidates with disabilities in the recently held UGC NET exam
> on June 28 2015. The UGC imposed its arbitrary guidelines for the use
> of scribe which is in complete violation and contrary to the Office
> Memorandum issued by the government of India in February 2013.  As
> aconsequence, scores of candidates with disabilities residing in the
> different states of India have expressed anger and narrated their
> ordeal on the social networking websites. Many were barred from
> appearing in the examination for frivolous reasons and were treated
> with contempt by the officials at the examination Centres. Some of the
> bitter experiences shared by the candidates are reproduced below for
> your kind perusal.
> Block quote
> Instead of verifying candidate-own scribe’s document on the date of
> examination, The CBSE imposed extra burden and asked blind candidates’
> to take permission one day prior to the exam. Now one could easily
> apply one’s common sense to comprehend the discrimination. When the
> all non-disabled aspirants were busy doing last-minute preparation,
> blind candidates struggled from pillar to post in reaching the
> different centres for availing permission to use writers. Most of them
> who are very poor, were forced to incur extra money unnecessairily
> Courtesy the CBSE.
> (Avinash Shahi Delhi).
> Block quote end
> Block quote
> My centre was at New Spot Public School in Vivek Vihaar. When I asked
> about scribe’s fee ,they told me that why did you use scribe when we
> provide braill question paper? I told them mam, yes you provide me
e> question paper in braill but you remember that you didn't provide me
> answersheet in braill. She completely lost her point. Finally they
> didn’t give my scribe’s his fee.
> (Manish Jaiswal Delhi).
> Block quote end
> Block quote
> A visually impaired girl has been out rightly denied permission to
> take the exam at a center in Coimbatore, Tamilnadu. Ms.Barani, who has
> just passed out of her M.A in English from Pondicherry University,
> informed me the folowing yesterday: Those at the exam center in
> Coimbatore did not provide a scribe, and also denied entry to the
> scribe she took with her. They told her that she should have obtained
> permission for bringing her own scribe one week earlier. They also
> told her that even otherwise she should have informed the exam center
> one week earlier that she would not bring her own scribe and hence
> they themselves should (kindly) arrange one. Ultimately she was turned
> down even though she had brought a scribe with herself, and requested
> them to arrange anyone of their own choice.
> (Muruganandan Tamil Nadu).
> Block quote end
> The above personal narratives are just in no way could be construed as
> representational. Blind candidates in Odisha, UP, Bihar, MP and in the
> whole of north east who have no internet connectivity suffered the
> ill-treatment at the examination Centres. Below is relevant sections
> of the NET Notification for the Court’s perusal
> Block quote
> i) Twenty five minutes compensatory time shall be provided for Paper –
> I and Paper – II separately. For paper – III, fifty minutes
> compensatory time shall
> be provided. These candidates, on their request, will also be provided
> the services of a scribe who would be a graduate in a subject other
> than that of
> the candidate. CBSE will also provide the Test Booklets of Paper-I,
> Paper–II & Paper–III in Braille in those subjects only which are
> printed in English
> or English and Hindi along with usual Test Booklets as provided to
> other candidates.
> ii) The Persons with Disability (Physically Challenged) candidates who
> are not in a position to write in their own hand-writing can also
> avail these services
> of scribe by making prior request (at least one week before the date
> of UGC-NET) in writing to the concerned Center Superintendent.
> Compensatory time and
> facility of scribe would not be provided to other Persons with
> Disability (Physically Challenged) candidates.
> iii) The candidate has the discretion of opting for his/her own scribe
> or has to request the concerned Center Superintendent for the same in
> writing at
> least one week in advance of the test. In such instances the candidate
> is allowed to meet the scribe a day before the examination so as to
> verify whether
> the scribe is suitable or not. Those candidates who opt for their own
> scribe have to produce the scribe before the concerned Center
> Superintendent along
> with his/her certificates of educational qualifications at least one
> day before the test. (See the full notification)
> http://cbsenet.nic.in/cbsenet/PDF/UGCNETbulletingJune2015.pdf
> Block quote end
> Above cited arbitrary provision imposed by UGC is contrary to the
> Office Memorandum of GOI which states
> Block quote
> I.	Criteria like educational qualification, marks scored, age or other
> such restrictions for the scribe/reader/lab assistant should not be
> fixed.  Instead, the invigilation system should be strengthened, so
> that the candidates using scribe/reader/lab assistant do not indulge
> in mal-practices like copying and cheating during the examination.
> Block quote end
> Respected Hon’ble Court, the above mentioned harsh narratives faced by
> disabled candidates are more than sufficient to reprimand UGC. And it
> is imperative for the Hon’ble Court to protect the rights of the
> disabled candidates  to equal opportunity and safety against
> discrimination. Given the extent of mental trauma and raw treatment
> meted out to the disabled candidates; Court should take stern action
> against the UGC at the earliest. 1. The UGC should be directed to
> reconduct NET examination for those candidates who were arbitrarily
> denied to appear in the examination. 2. Hon’ble Court should ensure
> that the aforementioned Office Memorandum issued by the Government of
> India be enforced scrupulously in letter and spirit. I hope and trust
> that the Court would construe this case as suo-motive and initiate
> serious action as envisaged under Section 59 of the Persons with
> Disabilities Act 1995 forthwith.
> Complainant: Avinash Shahi
> Ph.D Disability Policy Researcher at Centre for Law and Governance
> Address
> Room no-223
> Second Floor
> Periyar Hostel
> Jawaharlal Nehru University
> New Delhi 110067
> Mobile: 9717230779
> E-mail: shahi88avinash at 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/accessindia@accessindia.org.in/
> 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
> 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..

Pankaj Singh Kushwaha,
M.Phil: Research Scholar,
Centre for European Studies,
School of International Studies "SIS",
Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Dehli 110067.
Mobile no: +919868610216.
Email: justicewithall at gmail.com or pankaj.jnu11 at gmail.com
institutional E_mail: Pankaj44_isl at jnu.ac.in

More information about the AccessIndia mailing list