Showing posts with label Central Administrative Tribunal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Central Administrative Tribunal. Show all posts

Thursday, May 22, 2014

Central Administrative Tribunal directs Railways to appoint visually impaired candidates

Dear Colleagues,

Railways has always been very reluctant to hire persons with disabilities citing safety and security reasons though not even a single incident of safety has been attributed to disability till date.  Its actually a mindset of the Human Resource officials, inherent prejudices who attach incapacity to the disabled. 

In the instant case, nearly 10,000 visually challenged candidates had reportedly appeared in the examination in November-December 2013 after the railways advertised for 7,386 vacancies. All of them were, however, issued rejection letters by the Indian Railways before the results were announced for being “100 per cent visually challenged”.

In protest, the applicants moved  a petition in Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), arguing that they are eligible and entitled to be considered for the posts, both on merit as well as under reservation for visually challenged persons.

The CAT in its order yesterday directed Northern Railways to publish a revised merit list and appoint the candidates, who qualified on merit as well as under the disability quota.

Arguing for the applicants, lawyer S K Rungta – himself visually challenged – said the Northern Railways’ recruitment cell must file complete results, including the results of 100 per cent visually challenged candidates, so that their merit position could be ascertained.

Rungta and lawyer Pankaj Sinha urged the court to direct the Railway Board to consider appointing the petitioners and other visually challenged candidates.

The railways responded by saying that the vacancies were for people with “low vision” and that 100 per cent visually challenged persons cannot be hired for the posts despite the fact that the posts in question are identified as suitable for completely blind by the Government of India.

The tribunal, however, directed Northern Railways and the Railway Board to publish the complete results within two months and appoint the qualified candidates.

Northern Railways spokesperson Neeraj Sharma refused to comment. “The matter is sub-judice, so we cannot comment. But the railways will take appropriate action after consulting its legal department,” he said.

Despite catena of judgments by High Courts and Supreme Court, the Railways continues to play hide and seek when it comes to the equal employment rights of the persons with disabilities. In this matter, despite CAT's direction,  I am sure, given the past experience, Railways will delay the matter by knocking the doors of Delhi High Court against the CAT Order. However, the writing is clear on the wall. The Railway officials in the Human Resource division needs serious sensitization on disability issues and also  need to put their house in order. The reporting mechanism, appraisal, posting/transfers, disability reservation & promotion processes & equalizing facilities, reasonable accommodation for the employees with disabilities is something that they desperately need to work on on an urgent basis. Hope the message goes to right people.

Related news in Indian Express today



Monday, August 5, 2013

Delhi HC questions MSJE why disabled can't function as surgeon

Court questions 3% reservation for differently-abled MBBS degree holders

Sunday, Jul 28, 2013, 12:59 IST | Place: Delhi | Agency: DNA

Ayesha Arvind

The Delhi High Court has questioned the 3% reservation for differently-abled persons holding MBBS degree only in non-surgical posts. While hearing a plea pertaining to such an appointment, the Court asked, "Does the Centre feel that differently-abled persons with valid MBBS degrees are unfit to perform their duties as doctors in surgical procedures?" The Court has sought a clarification from the ministry of social justice and empowerment in this regard.

A bench of Justices Pradip Nandrajog and V Kameswar Rao has also directed the chief commissioner for persons with disabilities to appear in the Court on Monday. The Court order follows a plea in which an ENT surgeon has challenged the appointment of an orthopedically-handicapped (OPH) candidate for the same post in AIIMS for which he too had applied.

The surgeon, Dilip Samal, had applied for the post of senior resident/demonstrator at AIIMS in July last year under the OBC category. He challenged the appointment of an OPH candidate after his RTI query revealed that the selected candidate had scored less than the qualifying marks in written test. Samal was later informed by the AIIMS authorities that as per procedure those who qualify under the OPH category are adjusted in the respective category, irrespective of the marks and merits in the entrance exam.

Samal then approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) for relief. In January this year, the CAT had set aside the selection of the OPH candidate Mohammad Mubashshirul Haq. It had ruled that the AIIMS had not notified any relaxed standards of suitability for the OPH candidates while inviting applications or any time thereafter. AIIMS, in turn, challenged CAT’s ruling before the High Court.

The Court took note of the fact that Section 32 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and the DoPT guidelines mandate that authorities first identify posts to be reserved in medical facilities for persons with disabilities and specifically earmark them.

And that these seats cannot be adjusted with vacancies under other categories.

“Two issues arise out of the plea. The first being whether it is mandatory in law to identify seats reserved for differently-abled persons in medical specialities when applicants are invited from eligible candidates. The other issue which arises is a directive issued by the ministry of social justice and empowerment, government of India, requiring reservation in the medical field only in non-surgical posts,” the Court said.

“It is the second issue which troubles us more than the first. Prima facie, we find it strange that the ministry of social justice and empowerment would be of the opinion that differently-abled persons per se would be unfit to perform duties as a doctor in a discipline which requires surgical procedures to be performed,” it said.