Showing posts with label Reservation in Jobs for Blind. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reservation in Jobs for Blind. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 9, 2015

Kerala High Court: Non-consideration of VH candidate by Kannur University illegal

Terming the non-consideration of VH candidate and appointment of another candidate on the post reserved for persons with Disabilities as illegal, High Court has directed the Kannur University to appoint the visually impaired petitioner within two months.


HC to the aid of visually challenged woman

KOCHI, June 9, 2015
K.S. SUDHI

The High Court of Kerala has come to the support of Prasannakumari, a visually challenged woman from Chottanikkara, who appeared for an interview to a post of lecturer in law reserved for disabled persons in Kannur University.

Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar of the High Court ordered Kannur University to consider the suitability of Ms. Prasannakumari “for the post notified by treating her as a candidate who has the necessary age qualification for the post and is otherwise eligible for the post.”

The court also ordered the university to complete the aforesaid exercise within two months.

In her writ petition, the 40-year-old woman stated that she applied for the post of lecturer in law, reserved for the physically challenged, in 2008 and appeared for the interview on October 5, 2011.

Later, she received information that another woman had been appointed to the post.

The petitioner approached the court to quash the appointment and direct the university to consider her for the post.

Allowing the petition, the court held that the “action of the university in not considering the suitability of the petitioner for the post of lecturer in law, under the quota earmarked for the physically challenged candidates, is clearly illegal.”

The court also declared illegal the appointment of another candidate to the post that was intended for physically challenged candidates, consequent to a finding that no such candidate was available.

The appointment of another candidate as the lecture in law was also annulled by the court.

Source:  The Hindu 

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Visually Impaired Civil Service aspirants await appointments


The focus of the write-up by Mr. Subhash Ghatage (kafila.org) is the plight of four candidates – all of them visually challenged – who had cleared the UPSC (Union Public Service Commission) examinations way back in 2008, scored more marks than many ‘normal’ students and were still waiting for appointment letters. The Commission as everybody knows is India’s central agency authorised to conduct civil services and other important examinations.

The caller said that he was one among the four and shared with me the long struggle he along with others were engaged in to get their due. Apathy exhibited by people in the higher echelons of the Commission as far as visually challenged persons are concerned is really disturbing. And it was not for the first time that it had failed to give appointment letters to such candidates. Merely three years back Ravi Prakash Gupta had to approach the highest courts of the country namely the Supreme Court to get his appointment letter. Last February it was the Prime Minister’s Office  which had to intervene so that seven candidates from similar category could join their duty.

A recap of the appointments done between the period 1996 to 2008 tells us that only 15 visually challenged candidates have been recommended by UPSC, while almost 6900 vacancies were filled during this period. Among 15, 12 candidates have been recommended or upgraded after court orders.

While officially nothing is said about the inordinate delay by the commission in this particular case, it is evident in their action that candidates from this category are unwelcome. In fact, there seems to be a deliberate attempt to restrict the entry of such candidates, at times even by, glossing over the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995. e.g. A petition by the caller ( Mr Pankaj Srivastava) tells us how in the year 2008

‘[t]otal 891 candidates were declared succesful but only four candidates from visualy challenged category were recommended by the commission, whereas it should be 9 according to the PWD act 1995.’

Despite the fact that Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) gave a favourable decision, the Commission is still engaged in delaying tactics. It even refused to calculate the backlog according to the necessary provisions of the act since 1996 when the Tribunal specifically asked it to do so. As a report in a leading national daily tells us (Times of India, 16 th Sep 2013) “

Between the four of them, they have filed two applications and one contempt petition against their non-appointment in the Central Administrative Tribunal. The tribunal ruled in their favour each time. There is a High Court stay order on one CAT order of May 2012 directing the authorities to appoint the four candidates, which is to be heard on September 24.”

It was late 70 s when Frank Bowe, a disability rights activist from US had written a monograph ‘Handicapping America’ (1978) in which he tried to explain how the key issue in any debate around disability is the societal response to it. For Bowe, the main point was not the status of physical or mental impairment of a particular person, but the way society develops strategies to cope with it.

One does not know when the obdurate bureaucracy at the Commission would become more aware and sensitive to the fact that there is a sea change in the perception about disability now. If earlier dominant trend in the disability discourse revolved around adoption of ‘social welfare measures’ and the world was bit far away from taking it up as a ‘human rights issue’with the adoption of an international convention in 2006 welfare and charity have been replaced by new rights and freedoms and there is growing recognition that a change of attitude is vital if disabled people are to achieve equal status.

We are told that the commission annually submits a report of its work to the President of India which is also sent to each house of the Parliament for discussion. One just expects that honourable members of the parliament – who have enough lung power left to point out acts of omission and commission on part of the government or the treasury benches ever contemplating strategies to strike back, would at least find time to go through the reports and see for oneself the great hiatus which exists between rosy picture about disability welfare which is presented through the ‘official’ reports and the actual situation on the ground.

.......continue to read from source: No country for Visually Challenged by Subhash Ghatade

Monday, November 9, 2009

Delhi High Court relief to disabled quota suspended

Trying to know more about it, hence can't comment unless i see the order for myself!
regards
Subhash

Source: IANS
New Delhi, Nov 6 (IANS) The Supreme Court Friday suspended a Delhi High Court order to the union government to provide three percent reservation in state jobs to physically challenged persons as per a special law that accords one percent quota for visually impaired candidates.

A bench of Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Justice P. Sathasivam and Justice Deepak Verma suspended the high court order saying: “We are staying the high court directions. They are prima facie incorrect.”

The bench, however, clarified that it was not suspending the law for three percent reservation in state jobs to physically challenged persons, the Disabilities Act.

The apex court gave the order on an appeal by the union government challenging a Delhi High Court order, which had directed the centre to fully comply with the Disabilities Act and reserve three per cent seats for diabled persons according to its 1996 notification.

While granting the relief to the union government, the bench refused to heed the plea of National Federation of the Blind which wanted that the High Court order be allowed to operate.

Advocate Pratiti Rungta, himself visually impaired, who appeared for the federation, opposed the government’s appeal but the bench declined it saying “it is not possible to continue with the high court order.”

Rungta’s failed to convince the bench that no recruitment has been made under the Act.

Additional Solicitor General Indira Jaising contended that the directions of the high court were not workable.

The apex court had earlier directed the government to file a detailed status report regarding the extent to which the posts had been identified and filled up and also what steps had been taken to fill up the vacancies that had arisen since the Act has gone into force in 1996. The government is yet to file the status report.

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Reservation on single post would amount to 100% Reservation

Dear Friends,

Many of us in the Disability sector believe that 3% reservation for the PWD can be claimed on all posts including single posts. However, the courts have several times clarified that reservation on the single posts would be discriminatory to others and is against the provisions of Constitution of India as it will tantamount to 100% reservation.
regards

SC Vashishth
To read from source, click here

Delhi HC dismisses plea for reservation to single post of VC
9/16/2009

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition of a person who sought the court’s intervention to grant disability reservation to him in the appointment of Vice-Chancellor (VC) in newly-formed 15 universities.

A bench, comprising Chief Justice A P Shah and Justice Manmohan, dismissed the petition as withdrawn as there was only one post for the VC which could not be covered under any reservation clause.

Petitioner P R Ramanujam, who is suffering from locomotive disability and working as a professor of distance education and director of staff training and research institute in IGNOU, applied for the post of first VC in the newly formed 15 universities established under the Central University Act, 2009.

Mr Ramanujam contended that there was a statutory mechanism providing three per cent reservation to persons with disabilities, therefore, his name should be considered under the reserved category. Additional Solicitor General A S Chandhioke and Government Standing Counsel Ravinder Agarwal told the court that in this case reservation of any type could not be granted because there was only one seat for the post of VC and if reservation was granted, it would mean 100 per cent reservation. On this, the petitioner withdrew his petition.
UNI

Friday, July 3, 2009

AP High Courts questions its own Registrar General on rejecting Blind lawyer for the post of Judge!

Dear Friends,

Another good news. This time from Guntur district of Andhra Pradesh. A blind lawyer R Varahalaswami applied for posts of civil judge but faced rejection on the grounds of disability at the hands of Registrar General of AP High Court.

When challenged in the High Court, he gets a favourable order. The High Court even asked the petitioner to challenge the Recruitment Rules of the AP High Court! (Asked to challenge its own rules!!!!)

Another success after Tamilnadu! I am longing to see such a success in Delhi Judiciary Examination soon. Mind you, Delhi High Court has already amended its rules to accommodate the quota of Persons with Disabilities and reserved posts too some 3-4 years back. But till date no successful entry!!

regards

Subhash Chandra Vashishth

Here is the latest story from Times of India :

HYDERABAD: The AP High Court, on Thursday, accorded permission to a blind man for appearing for a screening test for the post of civil judge and also write the relevant written examination with the help of an assistant.

R Varahalaswami, a 28-year-old visually challenged advocate from Guntur applied for the post of a civil judge in June when the HC notified the posts for filling them up through a screening test and interview.

The judicial authorities rejected his application on June 16 saying that he has hundred per cent blindness and hence cannot be considered for this post. Swami approached the High Court challenging the rejection of his application. B Venkateswarlu, counsel for the petitioner arguing before a division bench comprising Justice Ghulam Mohammed and Justice Vilas V Afzulpurkar, contended that the proceedings of the Registrar General of the High Court were contrary to the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act 1955.


He said that the Act provides for 3 per cent reservations for persons with disability in every establishment of which one per cent should be reserved for persons suffering from blindness or low vision.

He maintained that the Registrar General in his notification issued for the recruitment of civil judges did not prescribe any disqualification to the 100 per cent visually challenged applicants.


The counsel told the court that the Madras High Court has appointed a totally blind person as a Munsif and he was also given posting as third additional district munsif at Coimbatore on June 1, this year.


The bench directed the Registrar General to allow the petitioner to attend to the screening test scheduled to be held on July 5 and provide an assistant to guide the petitioner during the test. It also told the petitioner to challenge the recruitment rules of the AP High Court in this regard.

Thursday, April 9, 2009

Delhi High Court gets tough on Railways for failing to fill up the reserved seats of Disabled

Dear Friends,

An update on the case being argued currently by Mr. Mani, my colleage at AICB's Advocacy Committee which incidently I had filed few years back!

The High Court is taking the matter seriously as it is seized with the matter for a long time now. I have a fear- a genuine fear! The recruiting organisations often count the candidates on reserved seats even if they clear on their own merit thereby limiting the recruitment prospects. Thus the reservation policy often works counter-productive.

Till today, I have not come across any case where the person even though higher in the merit and selected in Disabled Quota ever went and challenged as to why he was selected in reserved quota and not on his own merit - for his job is done and he doesn't want to antagonise the employer.

Others never come to know about the waiting list unless they apply for it under RTI. Thus many who genuinely need that reservation to find an employment never get that.

Another area of concern is counting an old employee who was recruited as non-disabled but acquired disability during his service, in disability quota . This also further restricts the quota and doesn't give clear picture of the implementation of the reservation policy of the employer. Well, this needs some serious cogitation!

regards

Subhash Chandra Vashishth
09811125521

Here is the press release :

New Delhi, Monday, 6th April 2009:

While hearing a petition filed by AllIndia Confederation of the Blind relating to violation of persons withdisabilities Act by the Indian Railways, a division bench of the Delhi High Court headed by Justice A. P. Shah (Chief Justice) sharply criticized the railways for not adhering to the court orders of 20th January 2009 directing it to maintain a roster with regard to appointments of disabled persons in Railways.

Earlier, a joint report worked out by the petitioner and the respondent asper the directions of the Delhi High Court had stated that there was awhopping backlog to the extent of 4254 vacancies on which disabled persons should have been appointed as per the persons with disabilities Act, but therailways did not adhere to the provisions of this Act.

Mr. Rajan Mani, counsel for the petitioner, All India Confederation of the Blind, argued that maintaining a roster was the first step towards ensuring reservations for disabled persons. ”Clearly, the Railways is not serious about fulfilling its statutory obligations,” he argued.

The honuorable Chief Justice observed that non compliance of court ordersamounted to contempt of the Court. He directed that Secretary Railways /Member (staff recruitments) be present in person on Monday 13th April 2009.The court also directed Railways to start special recruitment drive toappoint disabled persons by utilizing at least 50% of the available vacancies for this purpose. In a landmark order the court also directed therailways that no recruitment will take place unless provision is made tofill up 4254 vacancies reserved for disabled persons.

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

Why step-motherly treatment to Visually Impaired in Jobs?

Dear Friends,

From a long time, the Visually Disabled sector has been a victim of silent discrimination in the process of reservations in the jobs identified for them. The posts have been either not reserved for them to the mandatory number and where reserved, they were kept vacant on some or the other pretext. Many RTI replies to this effect revealed this truth but Departments failed to react on representations and petitions from the user groups and their organisation.

Over and above the Memorandum from the DOPT reducing the definition of the backlog and allowing the old vacancies to lapse further created a grim situation.

In such a scenario, the judgement in the present PIL has come as a relief to the disability sector. We hope that the Government Departments shall conform to the time period set by the court and fill in the vacancies.

I shall post the original judgement for your information in due course of time.


Here is the news on the Judgement by the Delhi High Court

Reserve jobs for visually-impaired as per law, Delhi High Court tells Centre New Delhi, Dec 22:

Accepting a plea filed by a group of visually-impaired persons, the Delhi High Court has asked the Union government to comply with the provisions of the Disabilities Act and reserve jobs for such candidates in the government and PSUs.

In a recent judgement, a Division Bench of Justice A P Shah and Justice S Muralidhar directed the Centre to fully comply with the Disabilities Act, according to which 3 percent jobs should be reserved for disabled persons, including 1 percent for the visually-impaired candidates. Giving a
deadline to the Central government till 2010 to fill up the job backlog; the Bench set up a committee to monitor that the court order was complied with by the government.
However, the court authorised the committee to appoint the non-disabled persons in exceptional cases.

The court order followed a PIL filed by National Blind Federation through advocate S K Rungta accusing the government of adopting step-motherly attitude towards the disabled. He submitted before the court that job reservation was given to physically challenged and hearing impaired persons in government establishments but visually weak or blind persons were deprived from their entitlement of 1 out of 3 percent under the Disabilities Act.


Bureau Report