CAT allows VH candidate to take exam for unidentified post

Now here, the Central Administrative Tribunal has put its mind to work unlike the traditional approach followed by the courts of mechanical interpretation of statutes. If the Government fails to identify posts where VH can work effectively, the VH candidates should not be made to suffer. Identification of posts has in fact become a roadblock for the competent candidates with disabilities to seek better career opportunities who are better placed  given the advancement in technology. Here is the detailed news appearing in Business Standard.

CAT allows visually impaired to participate in Auditor's exam

Press Trust of India  |  New Delhi  February 17, 2015 Last Updated at 18:40 IST

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has asked the government to allow a visually- impaired staffer to appear in an examination for promotion to the post of auditor, which was denied on the ground that the post was not suitable for the blind. 

A bench of CAT's judicial officer V Ajay Kumar asked the Centre to permit 41-year-old Mithlesh Choudhary, who is visually handicapped and also belongs to SC category, noting that "a prima facie case is made out". 

Choudhary, who is working as a Multi Tasking Staff at the Jaipur office of the Director, Post and Communication Audit, was barred from participating in the selection process for the post of Auditor on the ground that post was not suitable for blind persons. 

"In the circumstances and in view of prima facie case made out, respondents (Centre, Director, Post and Communication Audit and others) are directed to permit Choudhary to participate in the departmental examination for the post Auditor scheduled to be held on February 24 to 27, 2015, provisionally," the bench said. 

However, the tribunal made it clear that his result shall not be declared until further orders are passed by CAT. 

The interim order was passed by the tribunal after applicant's counsel Aurobindo Ghose, while citing an order passed by CAT in a similar matter, argued before it that Choudhary was entitled for direction to participate in the departmental examination for the post of Auditor.

Source: Business Standard

Not convinced, Court directs second revision in DoPT Memo 29.12.2005 on Reservation for PwDs

Dear Friends,

Post the directions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its judgment dated 17.07.2014 to the DoPT to carry out further modifications in Para 15 of the OM dated 29.12.2005  so that the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to compute 3% of reservation on total number of vacancies in the cadre strength can be implemented, the DoPT has been playing tactics to avoid granting the dues to the stakeholders. 

Yesterday, i.e. on 07th Jan 2015, the DoPT posted on its website at link: Available OM for Persons with Disabilities  the following memorandum carrying out some "further" (second in series) modifications in to its earlier Comprehensive Memorandum on Reservation for Persons with Disabilities : 

Click here for a screen reader accessible copy of the above memorandum.  For all other memorandums by DoPT related to the disability subject click here: Available OM for Persons with Disabilities.

Objective behind the amendment
The objective of this amendment was to harmonise the Comprehensive Memorandum on reservation to persons with disabilities dated 29.12.2005 with the recent clarification of the Hon'ble Supreme Court  in Civil Appeal No. 9096 of 2013 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 7541 of 2009) titled Union of India and Anr Vs. National Federation of the Blind and Others which I covered in my blog entry of Dec 10,  2013 titled Physically challenged Vs. Logically Challenged. 

Does this amendment bring anything new to the stakeholders?
Personally, I failed to find any major difference in the interpretation of said para 14 after two amendments at the direction of the Courts - it is nothing  but merely playing with the words. In nutshell, after a long battle in the court of law, the DoPT just added, "Separate rosters for Group 'A' posts and Group 'B' posts in the establishment shall be maintained."

Was this the intention of the legislature? Did the clarification of Hon'ble Supreme Court really meant this? Is DoPT really intending to giving the disabled their dues as per the spirit of the law and the clarification of the Hon'ble Supreme Court? These are the questions that the Babus of DoPT and Hon'ble PM Modi has to answer. People with Disabilities aren't happy with this attitude nor the way the disability subject is being handled by the departments particularly DoPT. 
  

Data collection indicates only 100 out of 1300 schools are disabled friendly

This is further to my earlier post dated 07th May 2013  wherein I had shared the order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court directing the private schools to provide barrier free infrastructure and also 26th Feb 2014. Now despite the two cases, the government of Delhi has filed a status report in the Delhi High Court indicating that only 100 schools have some facilities for disabled children from amongst 1300 private unaided schools.

Here is the news report published in Indian Express:

Govt: Only 100 city schools are disabled-friendly

The Director of Education (DoE) has been informed that less than 100 of 1,300 private unaided schools in the city have facilities to cater to students with special needs, with most only catering to children suffering from lack of vision of locomotor disabilities.

Only a handful mainstream schools are available for children with hearing impairment and mental disabilities, data submitted by the DoE to the Delhi High Court on Wednesday stated.

A bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Vipin Sanghi had earlier directed the DoE to conduct a study on disabled-friendly facilities in the private unaided schools. The directions were issued in a PIL field by Pramod Arora, a parent of a differently-abled child.

According to the DoE, only 800 schools had submitted data on the facilities available for children with special needs, of which 54 catered to locomotor disabilities and 34 to hearing impairment. In contrast, only 10 schools had facilities to educate visually challenged children and 20 for children with mental retardation.

Interestingly, the DoE noted, a sizeable number of these schools are located in South or Southeast Delhi, or in West Delhi. Very few schools with facilities for the disabled are located in North and East Delhi, the data showed.

Source: Indian Express