[AI] CHENNAI: A 70% blind person rejected for magistrate post despite being selected approach SC

SC Vashishth subhashvashishth at gmail.com
Mon Jul 6 06:06:07 PDT 2015


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 <mohibrafel at gmail.com> 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 <shahi88avinash at gmail.com> 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 <shahi88avinash at gmail.com> 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/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..
> >
>
>
> --
> 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/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..
>



-- 
Warm regards,

Subhash Chandra Vashishth
Mobile: +91 (11) 9811125521
Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. Consider
environment!


More information about the AccessIndia mailing list