Showing posts with label Chennai High Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chennai High Court. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 21, 2015

SC directs TN govt to keep a Judge slot for visually impaired candidate


Keep judge slot for 70% blind lawyer, SC tells Tamil Nadu govt
A Subramani, TNN | Jul 18, 2015, 05.54PM IST

CHENNAI: A CBI prosecutor suffering 70% blindness is close to realizing his dream of becoming a judicial magistrate, as the Supreme Court has directed Tamil Nadu government to keep one post of civil judge vacant for him.

An interim order to this effect was passed by a bench of Justice V Gopala Gowda and Justice S A Bobde on July 10.

Though V Surendra Mohan, 29, of Thiruvotriyur in Chennai got through written examination his name was not shortlisted for viva voce. He filed a writ petition for inclusion in the interview list. As an interim order, the court allowed him to take part in the interview and the result was kept in a sealed envelope. When it was opened after a later order, it was revealed that Surendra Mohan had secured 178 marks out of 400 in written examination, and 38.25 marks out of 60 in viva voce. To a court query, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission said he was well within the zone of consideration and appointment for a civil judge post.

However, he was not considered for appointment since he suffered more than 50% visual disability, whereas a proposed amendment to rules limited the disability between 40% and 50% for eligible candidates.

On June 5, the high court upheld his exclusion saying, "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% to 50%."

Surendra Mohan took the case to the Supreme Court saying the high court "wholly 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."

The judgment proceeds to reject the petitioner's claim without either an executive order or an amendment coming into force, he said, adding, "without the law having been changed, there was no basis for the judgment at all."

Reiterating that there is no way he could be excluded from the selection process, he said a GO dated April 11, 2005 clearly notified that PB (partially blind) persons are eligible for civil judge post. "The petitioner, who has 70% partial blindness, cannot in any way be excluded from the recruitment, he said, adding that the high court judgment overlooked the overwhelming discrimination in the system against the disabled, and in an egregious step it excludes the only fully eligible blind man."


Monday, July 6, 2015

Visually Impaired Public Prosecutor denied Magistrate post despite clearing Test, approaches SC

Please refer to my earlier post  titled "Committee of Judges decide a VH can not be a Judge in Tamil Nadu" dated 08 June 2015. The said candidate who is already working as a public prosecutor and denied elevation as a magistrate on flimsy grounds of disability, has finally approached the Supreme Court of India. The issue has been covered by Times of India succinctly below:

A 70% blind person rejected for magistrate post despite being selected approach SC
A Subramani,TNN | Jul 6, 2015, 01.06 AM IST

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 Supreme 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.

Source: Times of India

Monday, June 8, 2015

Committee of Judges decide a VH can not be a Judge in Tamil Nadu

What can be more sad than this case wherein the judiciary has decided among themselves and advised the State Government that Visually impaired can not be function as a Judge! We have had many progressive judgements from Chennai High Court, but this one is pretty unreasonable. I am hopeful, this is challenged before the double bench soon.

Here is this story from Tamil Nadu appearing in Times of India.

Partial blindness shatters man’s judge dreams
A Subramani,TNN | Jun 8, 2015, 01.06 AM IST


CHENNAI: 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."

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/Partial-blindness-shatters-mans-judge-dreams/articleshow/47578609.cms

Monday, May 4, 2015

Chennai HC asks for all GOs by Tamil Nadu on disability reservation for judicial scrutiny

Govt orders on disabled quota under HC scrutiny
TNN | May 3, 2015, 12.42AM IST

CHENNAI: All government orders in Tamil Nadu allowing or disallowing disabled persons from applying for certain posts in government services have come under judicial scrutiny, with the Madras high court making it clear that it would go through all such orders and circulars to ascertain possible anomalies and discriminations.

A directive to this effect was issued on Friday by the first bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice T S Sivagnanam while dealing with a PIL challenging exclusion of all disabled persons, except those with orthopaedic disability, from the post of village administrative officer (VAO).

The matter relates to Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) notification to recruit VAOs. Since there was no mention about the quota for visually impaired persons, a federation for visually disabled persons challenged the legality of the employment notification. After being directed by the court to spell out its stand, the government filed a report agreeing that there should not be any blanket ban on visual or hearing impaired persons from applying for the jobs.

"In view of the question posed by this court, the report, in fact, agrees that there should not be a blanket exemption of persons with blindness and low vision or hearing impairment from reservation to the post of VAO or for that matter any post without considering the percentage of disability and level of functionality," the bench said.

The bench then felt there is a need to reconsider the notification, and added: "A person with disability has potential to enhance his skill either by using technology or training through rehabilitation process. It is stated that in respect of VAO a person with 40% visual impairment can discharge the functions after acquiring certain skills."

It then asked the government to take corrective action by issuing fresh GOs in supersession of the earlier orders, and suggested that it hand over a compilation of all the past and existing GOs in for judicial scrutiny. The matter was then adjourned to June 3 for further hearing.

Source: Times of India