actually group in C reservation in promotion is already exist but govt is
not ready to give reservation in group A and B category after coming this
judgement it should be applicable for all categories
Don't confuse in case of direct recruitment reservation is always there.
----- Original Message -----
From: "dr.u.n.sinha narain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <accessindia@accessindia.org.in>
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 12:43 AM
Subject: Re: [AI] A land mark judgement of reservation of VH in promotion
> the case is apprehended in one circumstance and that too by one high
> court. can it be applicable to all? take an example that if someone is
> working in a bank as a clerk, would he be able to avail the benifit of
> this case?, if he or she is a VI.
>
> On 12/22/07, Harshvardhan Singh Negi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> yes 100 per cent applicable for all handi capped category.
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "dr.u.n.sinha narain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: <accessindia@accessindia.org.in>
>> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 2:42 AM
>> Subject: Re: [AI] A land mark judgement of reservation of VH in promotion
>>
>>
>> > is this applicable to visually handicapped too?
>> > drun
>> >
>> > On 12/20/07, Harshvardhan Singh Negi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > wrote:
>> >> Kindly find the judgement of Delhi highcourt regarding Reservation in
>> >> promotion of VH
>> >>
>> >> IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> WP (C) Nos. 11818 and 13627-28/2004
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 07.12.2007
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Pronounced on : December 07, 2007
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> # Union of India thru G.M. Northern Railway .....Petitioner in
>> >>
>> >> WP(C) No.
>> >>
>> >> 11818/2004
>> >>
>> >> Chairman, Railway Board ....Petitioner in WP(C) No.
>> >>
>> >> 13627-28/2004
>> >>
>> >> ! through : Mr.
>> >>
>> >> V.S.R. Krishna with
>> >>
>> >> Mr. B.S. Rajesh Agrajit
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> VERSUS
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> $ Jagmohan Singh .....Respondent in
>> >>
>> >> WP(C) No.
>> >>
>> >> 11818/2004
>> >>
>> >> Northern Railway Physically Handicapped
>> >>
>> >> Employees Welfare Association and Ors.
>> >>
>> >> ......Respondent in WP(C) No.
>> >>
>> >> 13627-28/2004
>> >>
>> >> ! through : Dr. Harish
>> >>
>> >> Uppal for the
>> >>
>> >> respondent in WP(C)
>> >>
>> >> No.11818/2004
>> >>
>> >> Mr.A.K. Behera for the
>> >>
>> >> respondent in WP(C) No.
>> >>
>> >> 13627-28/2004
>> >>
>> >> CORAM :-
>> >>
>> >> THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI
>> >>
>> >> THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the
>> >> Judgment?
>> >>
>> >> 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
>> >>
>> >> 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> A.K. SIKRI, J.
>> >>
>> >> 1.The question that arises for consideration in these cases is as to
>> >> whether
>> >> 3%
>> >>
>> >> reservation under Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal
>> >>
>> >> Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995
>> >>
>> >> {hereinafter referred to as the 'Disability Act'} in the public
>> >> employment
>> >>
>> >> provided in favour of the physically handicapped persons would be
>> >> available
>> >> to
>> >>
>> >> them even for promotions as well. The Tribunal has, vide the impugned
>> >> judgment,
>> >>
>> >> decided this question in the affirmative. Not satisfied with this
>> >> opinion
>> >> of
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> the Tribunal, in these writ petitions the said judgment was assailed
>> >> by
>> >> the
>> >>
>> >> Government. It would be advisable to take note of the factual matrix
>> >> under
>> >>
>> >> which the aforesaid question arises for consideration from WP (C) No.
>> >> 11818/04.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 2.The respondent herein is an orthopaedically handicapped person
>> >> having
>> >> 55%
>> >>
>> >> disability. He was appointed as LDC in the Northern Railways on
>> >> 16.6.1972.
>> >> He
>> >>
>> >> got promotions from time to time and has risen to the rank of Office
>> >>
>> >> Superintendent Grade-I (OS-I). Next promotion is to the post of Chief
>> >> Office
>> >>
>> >> Superintendent (COS). Two posts of COS were created by the petitioner
>> >> on
>> >> the
>> >>
>> >> recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission vide letter dated
>> >> 10.5.1998.
>> >>
>> >> They are to be filled up as a one time relaxation following the
>> >> process
>> >> of
>> >>
>> >> modified selection as per the Railway Board's communication dated
>> >> February
>> >> 1999.
>> >>
>> >> It is not in dispute that the existing instructions with regard to
>> >> reservations
>> >>
>> >> of SC/ST have been observed to be continued in the new grades.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 3.Even before the Disability Act came into force in the year 1996, the
>> >>
>> >> Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training vide OM
>> >> dated
>> >>
>> >> 28.2.1986 had provided for reservations in jobs for physically
>> >> handicapped
>> >>
>> >> persons in Group C and D posts. The posts on which such reservation
>> >> was
>> >> to
>> >> be
>> >>
>> >> applied were identified by the Railway Board on 10.7.1987. As many as
>> >> 253
>> >> jobs
>> >>
>> >> in Group C and 17 in Group D were identified where physically
>> >> handicapped
>> >>
>> >> persons could be appointed. The post in question, namely, Chief Office
>> >>
>> >> Superintendent is a Group C post. The Government of India, Ministry of
>> >>
>> >> Personnel issued a memorandum on 20.11.1989 providing reservation for
>> >> physically
>> >>
>> >> handicapped in the posts filled by promotion. This has to be
>> >> implemented
>> >> by
>> >> all
>> >>
>> >> Ministries and Departments. By Disability Act coming into force on
>> >> 7.2.1996,
>> >> a
>> >>
>> >> mandatory requirement of providing 3% reservation in appointments has
>> >> been
>> >> made,
>> >>
>> >> which included handicap in vision, hearing and locomotion. However,
>> >> this
>> >> is
>> >>
>> >> with a rider that having regard to the type of work in any
>> >> establishment,
>> >> the
>> >>
>> >> appropriate Government by way of a notification exempt any department
>> >> or
>> >>
>> >> establishment from reserving the posts for disabled persons.
>> >> Memorandum
>> >> dated
>> >>
>> >> 16.1.1998 provides 100 point roster for reserved posts for physically
>> >>
>> >> handicapped and point No.1 is reserved for physically handicapped. OM
>> >> dated
>> >>
>> >> 18.2.1997 issued by the Ministry of Personnel provides reservation as
>> >> per
>> >> roster
>> >>
>> >> to the physically handicapped persons in Group A and B posts and also
>> >> OM
>> >> dated
>> >>
>> >> 4.7.1997 providing roster points No. 1, 24, 67 in the cycle of 100
>> >> vacancies
>> >> for
>> >>
>> >> 100 point roster to be reserved for physically handicapped persons.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 4.The respondent herein wanted that for appointment to the post of COS
>> >>
>> >> reservation for physically handicapped persons be also made in tune
>> >> with
>> >> such
>> >>
>> >> reservations having provided for SC/ST candidates. We may, however,
>> >> note
>> >> that
>> >>
>> >> prior to the enactment of the Disability Act, the Ministry of Railways
>> >> had
>> >> taken
>> >>
>> >> a decision on 5.12.1995 that for the posts which are to be filled by
>> >> promotion,
>> >>
>> >> reservations for physically handicapped persons would not be given
>> >> keeping
>> >> in
>> >>
>> >> view the special nature of job and safe carriage of goods and
>> >> passengers.
>> >>
>> >> However, after the Disability Act came into force, the respondent made
>> >>
>> >> representations, both individually as well as through his Association
>> >> i.e.
>> >>
>> >> Northern Railway Physically Handicapped Employees Welfare Association,
>> >> to
>> >>
>> >> provide such reservation even when the posts are to be filled by
>> >> promotion.
>> >>
>> >> These representations were not responded to by the Railway
>> >> Authorities.
>> >> The
>> >>
>> >> respondent, thus, filed OA No. 3108/2002 which was disposed of with
>> >> the
>> >>
>> >> directions to consider the representation of the respondent in the
>> >> light
>> >> of
>> >> OM
>> >>
>> >> dated 20.11.1989. The Department considered the representation and
>> >> turned
>> >> down
>> >>
>> >> the same vide its decision dated 26.4.2002 and 25.3.2003. As the
>> >> authorities
>> >>
>> >> did not accede to the respondent's demand, he filed second OA being OA
>> >> No.
>> >>
>> >> 2633/2003 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench,
>> >> New
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Delhi. That is how the question posed at the outset came for
>> >> consideration
>> >>
>> >> before the Tribunal.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 5.Perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal would reveal that the case
>> >> of
>> >> the
>> >>
>> >> respondent before it was that once the Government had taken a decision
>> >> to
>> >>
>> >> introduce reservation for physically handicapped persons in Group C
>> >> and D
>> >> posts,
>> >>
>> >> and the post of COS was a Group C post, reservation had to be provided
>> >> in
>> >> this
>> >>
>> >> post as well and it could not be exempted on the purported ground that
>> >> such
>> >> a
>> >>
>> >> reservation was not possible because of the safe carriage of goods and
>> >>
>> >> passengers. It was stressed that job of COS is an office job and the
>> >>
>> >> disability, insofar as the physically handicapped is concerned, is in
>> >> no
>> >> manner
>> >>
>> >> going to put hindrance in the discharge of duties. The petitioner had
>> >> given
>> >> the
>> >>
>> >> following justification for not adopting the instructions of DoPT
>> >> dated
>> >>
>> >> 20.11.1989 :-
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> (i) Every post at the lowest grade of entry has an avenue of
>> >> promotion.
>> >>
>> >> Some of the promotions, e.g. Khallasi to Khallasi Helper, Junior Clerk
>> >> to
>> >> Senior
>> >>
>> >> Clerk, Junior Chargeman to Senior Chargeman etc. are more or less
>> >> based
>> >> on
>> >>
>> >> proportionate distribution between the two grades, the higher grade
>> >> being
>> >> the
>> >>
>> >> compensation for more experience gained in basically the same nature
>> >> of
>> >> duties.
>> >>
>> >> However, in more senior grades the nature of duties become markedly
>> >> different,
>> >>
>> >> involving far greater mobility and far wider range of knowledge and
>> >>
>> >> responsibilities. This fact has been recognized by placing a selection
>> >> between
>> >>
>> >> the lowest grades and the next higher grade. The selection procedures
>> >> are
>> >>
>> >> necessarily stringent so as to ensure that only the really capable in
>> >> all
>> >>
>> >> respects are put out to shoulder the much higher responsibilities
>> >> devolving
>> >> in
>> >>
>> >> the higher grade.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> (ii) Difficulty in implementing reservation for physically handicapped
>> >> in
>> >>
>> >> higher grades filled by promotion involving supervisory duties
>> >> requiring
>> >> fair
>> >>
>> >> amount of mobility and visual acuity.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> (iii) In some cases promotions may involve transfer from the existing
>> >>
>> >> place of duty of the physically handicapped posting problem attendant
>> >> on
>> >>
>> >> dislocation of the physically handicapped.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> (iv) It has not been possible to fill the 3% quota prescribed for
>> >>
>> >> recruitment of physically handicapped persons in identified posts from
>> >> the
>> >> open
>> >>
>> >> market. In fact there is a considerable backlog, the main reasons
>> >> being
>> >>
>> >> availability of limited number of posts/ categories identified for
>> >> appointment
>> >>
>> >> of physically handicapped as against computation of vacancies for this
>> >> purpose
>> >>
>> >> on the number of direct recruitment in both identified as well as
>> >> non-identified
>> >>
>> >> categories. In this background with adequate number of physically
>> >> handicapped
>> >>
>> >> persons no being there in the feeder grade we will be faced with a
>> >> situation
>> >> of
>> >>
>> >> perennial backlog and carry forward.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> (v) Reservation in posts filled by promotion for physically
>> >> handicapped
>> >>
>> >> employee has also not been found necessary in view of the
>> >> non-discriminatory
>> >>
>> >> provisions in place in the Railways in the matter of their promotion
>> >> along
>> >> with
>> >>
>> >> others subject to their passing selection/suitability/trade test, as
>> >> enjoined in
>> >>
>> >> Section 47(2) of the Disability Act.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> (vi) Reservation as prescribed for physically handicapped is already
>> >> being
>> >>
>> >> followed at the initial stage of recruitment from the open market in
>> >> posts
>> >>
>> >> identified for being manned by appropriate category of handicapped as
>> >> enjoined
>> >>
>> >> in Section 33 of the Disability Act.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> (vii) The Railways, being an operational transport organization,
>> >> basically
>> >>
>> >> responsible for the safe carriage of goods and passengers, reservation
>> >> in
>> >>
>> >> promotion for promotion for physically handicapped has not been found
>> >> to
>> >> be
>> >>
>> >> necessary.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 6.The Tribunal, in this detailed judgment, did not find favour with
>> >> any
>> >> of
>> >> the
>> >>
>> >> arguments of the petitioner herein. It opined that having regard to
>> >> the
>> >>
>> >> objectives in providing such reservations, the benefit thereof had to
>> >> be
>> >> given
>> >>
>> >> to the respondent, more so when the post in question to which
>> >> promotion
>> >> is
>> >> to be
>> >>
>> >> made is a Group C post and OM dated 20.11.1989 specifically provides
>> >> for
>> >>
>> >> reservation in Group C posts. The Tribunal, thus, found that the
>> >> alleged
>> >> policy
>> >>
>> >> decision was totally arbitrary and without any rational or reasonable
>> >> grounds.
>> >>
>> >> It went on to observe that it was a glaring example of arbitrariness
>> >> and
>> >>
>> >> unreasonable classification, inasmuch as, for the same post of COS, in
>> >> the
>> >>
>> >> normal channel, the respondent could be considered and promoted and
>> >> physical
>> >>
>> >> disability was not an impediment while, ironically, it becomes
>> >> impediment
>> >> when
>> >>
>> >> benefit of reservation is to be given.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 7.Before us similar arguments were advanced by the petitioner on the
>> >> basis
>> >> of
>> >>
>> >> which the respondent's application was contested. It was stated in the
>> >> first
>> >>
>> >> instance that Section 33 of the Disability Act does not provide for a
>> >>
>> >> reservation in the promotional post. Submission was that the
>> >> expression
>> >>
>> >> ?vacancies? occurring in Section 33 would relate to the vacancies only
>> >> at
>> >>
>> >> induction level and not while making promotions. It was again stressed
>> >> that
>> >>
>> >> though promotion was not to be denied to a person merely on the ground
>> >> of
>> >> his
>> >>
>> >> disability, at the same time, it was even the province of the
>> >> appropriate
>> >>
>> >> Government to give regard to the type of work carried on in any
>> >> establishment
>> >>
>> >> and on that basis decide as to whether for a particular job any such
>> >> reservation
>> >>
>> >> is to be given to the persons suffering from disability, as provided
>> >> in
>> >> Section
>> >>
>> >> 47 of the Disability Act. Learned counsel submitted that giving due
>> >> regard
>> >> to
>> >>
>> >> the said provision the Ministry of Railways included the necessary
>> >> provision
>> >>
>> >> under Para 189-A and Para 231-A of the Indian Railway Establishment
>> >> Manual
>> >> Vol.
>> >>
>> >> I (Revised Edition 1989). Para 189-A reads as under :-
>> >>
>> >> ?189A : Promotion of persons with disability
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> There shall be no discrimination in the matter of promotion merely on
>> >> the
>> >>
>> >> ground of physical disability. This will apply to categories of staff
>> >> who
>> >> have
>> >>
>> >> been recruited from the open market against the vacancies reserved for
>> >>
>> >> recruitment of physically handicapped and the staff who acquire
>> >> disability
>> >>
>> >> during service and are absorbed in suitable alternative employment as
>> >> per
>> >>
>> >> provision contained in Ch. XIII. Such staff will be considered for
>> >> promotion
>> >> in
>> >>
>> >> their turn based on their eligibility and suitability along with
>> >> others
>> >> in
>> >> the
>> >>
>> >> selection/ suitability/trade test for promotion to higher Grade post.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Para 231-A is identically worded
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 8.He also submitted that Section 47 only mandated that there would not
>> >> be
>> >> any
>> >>
>> >> discrimination in the matter of promotion and from this it would not
>> >> follow
>> >> that
>> >>
>> >> such a person is to be given ?preferential treatment?. Learned counsel
>> >> also
>> >>
>> >> stated that a conscious policy decision was taken by the Railways
>> >> keeping
>> >> in
>> >>
>> >> view the duties of COS and it was decided that no such reservation
>> >> could
>> >> be
>> >>
>> >> given in the said post keeping in view the safety of the goods and
>> >> passengers.
>> >>
>> >> His submission was that even the DoPT was apprised of the aforesaid
>> >> decision
>> >> and
>> >>
>> >> the logic behind the same and, therefore, it can be presumed that DoPT
>> >> had
>> >> no
>> >>
>> >> objection to, or any dissensions on the Raiways decision to depart
>> >> from
>> >> its
>> >>
>> >> policies.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 9.Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supported the
>> >> reasoning
>> >>
>> >> adopted by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment. He also referred to
>> >> the
>> >>
>> >> provisions of the Disability Act and emphasized that liberal
>> >> interpretation
>> >> was
>> >>
>> >> to be given to the language of Sections 33 and 47 of the Disability
>> >> Act
>> >> in
>> >> order
>> >>
>> >> to ensure that it subserves the purpose for which these provisions
>> >> were
>> >>
>> >> introduced in the said enactment.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 10.We have given our utmost consideration to the submissions of
>> >> counsel
>> >> on
>> >> both
>> >>
>> >> sides.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 11.In order to reach the root of the issue, it would be necessary to
>> >> understand
>> >>
>> >> the rational and reason for making provision for reservation in
>> >> employment
>> >> for
>> >>
>> >> differently able persons under the Disability Act.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 12.Our constitutional governance, as envisaged, respects basic human
>> >> rights
>> >> and
>> >>
>> >> promotes human development in all situations wherein the dignity and
>> >> the
>> >> worth
>> >>
>> >> of an individual lies at the core of a democratic value. The noble
>> >> objectives
>> >>
>> >> and rights enshrined in our Constitutional are to be materialized in
>> >> regard
>> >> to
>> >>
>> >> the entire Indian Society which also includes Communities that had
>> >> remained
>> >>
>> >> disadvantaged and under developed due to various reasons and includes
>> >> people
>> >>
>> >> with disabilities. It is the aim of any civilized society to secure
>> >> dignity
>> >> to
>> >>
>> >> every individual. There cannot be dignity without equality of status
>> >> and
>> >>
>> >> opportunity. The absence of equal opportunities in any walk of social
>> >> life
>> >> is a
>> >>
>> >> denial of equal status and equal participation in the affairs of the
>> >> society,
>> >>
>> >> and therefore, of its equal membership. The dignity of the individual
>> >> is
>> >> dented
>> >>
>> >> and direct proportion to his deprivation of the equal access to social
>> >> means.
>> >>
>> >> The democratic foundations are missing when equal opportunity to grow,
>> >> govern
>> >>
>> >> and give one?s best to the society is denied to a sizable section of
>> >> the
>> >>
>> >> society. The deprivation of the opportunities may be direct or
>> >> indirect
>> >> as
>> >> when
>> >>
>> >> the wherewithals to avail of them are denied. Nevertheless, the
>> >> consequences
>> >> are
>> >>
>> >> as potent (See: Indira Sawhney v. Union of India AIR 1993 SC 477).
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 13.Let us understand the rights of disabled with aforesaid
>> >> constitutional
>> >>
>> >> mandate in mind. Disability is a result both of the biological
>> >> condition
>> >> of
>> >> the
>> >>
>> >> individual and of the social status that attaches to that biological
>> >> condition.
>> >>
>> >> Till recently, persons with disabilities were depicted not as subjects
>> >> of
>> >> legal
>> >>
>> >> rights but as objects of welfare, health and charity programs. The
>> >> underlying
>> >>
>> >> policy had been to segregate and exclude people with disabilities from
>> >>
>> >> mainstream society, sometimes providing them with special schools,
>> >> sheltered
>> >>
>> >> workshops, special housing and transportation. This policy was
>> >> perceived
>> >> as
>> >> just
>> >>
>> >> because disabled persons were believed incapable of coping with both
>> >> society
>> >> at
>> >>
>> >> large and all or most major life activities. A Division Bench of this
>> >> Court
>> >> in
>> >>
>> >> Social Jurist, A Lawyers Group v. UOI and Ors. 2002 VI AD (DELHI) 217
>> >> was
>> >> forced
>> >>
>> >> to pass the following comments:
>> >>
>> >> ?It is the common experience of several persons with disabilities that
>> >> they
>> >> are
>> >>
>> >> unable to lead a full life due to societal barriers and discrimination
>> >> faced
>> >> by
>> >>
>> >> them in employment, access to public spaces, transportation etc.
>> >> Persons
>> >> with
>> >>
>> >> disability are most neglected lot not only in the society but also in
>> >> the
>> >>
>> >> family. More often they are an object of pity. There are hardly any
>> >> meaningful
>> >>
>> >> attempts to assimilate them in the mainstream of the Nation's life.
>> >> The
>> >> apathy
>> >>
>> >> towards their problems is so pervasive that even the number of
>> >> disabled
>> >> persons
>> >>
>> >> existing in the country is not well documented.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> T.R.Dye, Policy Analyst, in his book `Understanding Public Policy'
>> >> says:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ``Conditions in society which are not defined as a problem and for
>> >> which
>> >>
>> >> alternatives are never proposed, never become policy issues.
>> >> Government
>> >> does
>> >>
>> >> nothing and conditions remain the same.'`
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> This statement amply applies in the case of the disabled. At least
>> >> this
>> >> was
>> >> the
>> >>
>> >> position till few years ago. The condition of the disabled in the
>> >> society
>> >> was
>> >>
>> >> not defined as a problem, and therefore, it did not become public
>> >> issue.
>> >> It
>> >> is
>> >>
>> >> not that this problem was not addressed. Various NGOs, Authors, Human
>> >> Rights
>> >>
>> >> Groups have been focusing on this problem from time to time and for
>> >> quite
>> >>
>> >> sometime. But it was not defined as a problem which could become
>> >> public
>> >> issue.
>> >>
>> >> Until the realisation dawned on the Government and the policy makers
>> >> that
>> >> the
>> >>
>> >> right of the disabled was also a human right issue.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> xxx xxx xxx
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Various kinds of rights are recognised in this legislation which is on
>> >> the
>> >>
>> >> Statute book for last about 6 years now but the question is as to
>> >> whether
>> >> the
>> >>
>> >> Act is implemented in its true spirit and the rights conferred upon
>> >> disabled
>> >>
>> >> under this Act have been translated into reality?? Whether the
>> >> disabled
>> >> are
>> >> able
>> >>
>> >> to reap the fruits of this legislation?? The present case is a pointer
>> >> to
>> >> the
>> >>
>> >> fact that all is still not well.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Unless the mindset of the public changes; unless the attitude of the
>> >> persons
>> >> and
>> >>
>> >> officials who are given the duty of implementation of? this? Act?
>> >> changes,
>> >>
>> >> whatever? rights are granted to the disabled under? the Act, would
>> >> remain
>> >> on
>> >>
>> >> paper.?
>> >>
>> >> 14. The subject of the rights of people with disabilities should be
>> >> approached
>> >>
>> >> from human rights perspective, which recognizes that persons with
>> >> disabilities
>> >>
>> >> are entitled to enjoy the full range of guaranteed rights and freedoms
>> >> without
>> >>
>> >> discrimination on the ground of disability. There should be a full
>> >> recognition
>> >>
>> >> of the fact that persons with disability are the integral part of the
>> >> community,
>> >>
>> >> equal in dignity and entitled to enjoy the same human rights and
>> >> freedoms
>> >> as
>> >>
>> >> others.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 15.With this objective in mind the Disability Act was enacted. The
>> >> Disability
>> >>
>> >> Act enacts a disability-equality law and does not limit itself to
>> >> prohibiting
>> >>
>> >> discrimination, but addresses a wide range of issues relating to
>> >> persons
>> >> with
>> >>
>> >> disabilities. It is the legislative attempt to open up employment,
>> >> education,
>> >>
>> >> housing, and goods and services for persons regardless of their
>> >> disabilities
>> >> in
>> >>
>> >> order to change the understanding of disability from a medical to a
>> >> social
>> >>
>> >> category.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 16.Therefore, providing employment to persons with disability is
>> >> absolutely
>> >>
>> >> essential. As, with unemployment, comes isolation and fewer
>> >> opportunities
>> >> to
>> >>
>> >> participate in the life of a community or in recreational and social
>> >> activities.
>> >>
>> >> Thus, a human rights approach offers both the platform for such
>> >> societal
>> >>
>> >> transformation and a way for disabled people to transform their sense
>> >> of
>> >> who
>> >>
>> >> they are ? from stigmatised objects of care to valued subjects of
>> >> their
>> >> own
>> >>
>> >> lives. For people who are poor and oppressed this is a key starting
>> >> point
>> >> of
>> >> any
>> >>
>> >> meaningful process of social and economic development. According to
>> >> Gerard
>> >> Quinn
>> >>
>> >> and Theresia Degener (Human rights and disability: The current use and
>> >> future
>> >>
>> >> potential of United Nations human rights instruments in the context of
>> >>
>> >> disability. Geneva, Office of the High Commission for Human Rights.
>> >> (2002)
>> >>
>> >> Available at, http://193.194.138.190/disability/study.htm, p.1.):-
>> >>
>> >> ?[T]he human rights perspective means viewing people with disabilities
>> >> as
>> >>
>> >> subjects and not as objects. It entails moving away from viewing
>> >> people
>> >> with
>> >>
>> >> disabilities as problems toward viewing them as rights holders.
>> >> Importantly,
>> >> it
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> means locating any problems outside the person and especially in the
>> >> manner
>> >> by
>> >>
>> >> which various economic and social processes accommodate the difference
>> >> of
>> >>
>> >> disability or not as the case may be. The debate about disability
>> >> rights
>> >> is
>> >>
>> >> therefore connected to a larger debate about the place of difference
>> >> in
>> >>
>> >> society.?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 17.Introduction of provisions like Section 33 and Section 47 of the
>> >> Disability
>> >>
>> >> Act is to be seen with this objective in mind.
>> >>
>> >> 18.The conjoint reading of Sections 33 and 47 of the Disability Act
>> >> giving
>> >> the
>> >>
>> >> interpretation which these provisions deserve, we are of the opinion
>> >> that
>> >> the
>> >>
>> >> persons with disability would be entitled to reservation even in
>> >> promotion
>> >> if
>> >>
>> >> the promotion is to Group C and D post. For the sake of convenience,
>> >> we
>> >>
>> >> reproduce Sections 33 and 47(2) of the Disability Act, which are to
>> >> the
>> >>
>> >> following effect :-
>> >>
>> >> ?33. Reservation of posts. - Every appropriate Government shall
>> >> appoint
>> >> in
>> >>
>> >> every establishment such percentage of vacancies not less than three
>> >> per
>> >> cent
>> >>
>> >> for persons or class of persons with disability of which one per cent
>> >> each
>> >> shall
>> >>
>> >> be reserved for persons suffering from -
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> (i) blindness or low vision;
>> >>
>> >> (ii) hearing impairment;
>> >>
>> >> (iii) locomotor disability or cerebral palsy,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> in the posts identified for each disability:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the
>> >> type
>> >> of
>> >> work
>> >>
>> >> carried on in any department or establishment, by notification subject
>> >> to
>> >> such
>> >>
>> >> conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt
>> >> any
>> >>
>> >> establishment from the provisions of this section.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> xx xx xx
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 47. Non-discrimination in Government employment. -
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> (1) xx xx xx
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> (2) No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of
>> >> his
>> >>
>> >> disability:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the
>> >> type
>> >> of
>> >> work
>> >>
>> >> carried on in any establishment, by notification and subject to such
>> >> conditions,
>> >>
>> >> if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any
>> >> establishment
>> >> from
>> >>
>> >> the provisions of this section.?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 19.We may also reproduce here the relevant OM dated 20.11.1989 of the
>> >> DoPT,
>> >>
>> >> which reads as under :-
>> >>
>> >> ?12. Reservation for the physically handicapped in Groups 'C' and 'D'
>> >>
>> >> posts filled by promotion. - It has been decided that when promotions
>> >> are
>> >> being
>> >>
>> >> made (i) within Group 'D', (ii) from Group 'D' to Group 'C' and (iii)
>> >> within
>> >>
>> >> Group 'C', reservation will be provided for the three categories of
>> >> the
>> >>
>> >> physically handicapped persons, namely, the visually handicapped, the
>> >> hearing
>> >>
>> >> handicapped and the orthopaedically handicapped.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The applicability of the reservation will, however, be limited to the
>> >>
>> >> promotions being made to those posts that are identified as being
>> >> capable
>> >> of
>> >>
>> >> being filled/held by the appropriate category of physically
>> >> handicapped.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 2. Each of the three categories of the physically handicapped persons
>> >> will
>> >>
>> >> be allowed reservation at one per cent each. Though the reservations
>> >> will
>> >> be
>> >>
>> >> effective only in those posts that are identified as being capable of
>> >> being
>> >> held
>> >>
>> >> by the appropriate category of the physically handicapped persons, the
>> >> number of
>> >>
>> >> vacancies that will be reserved for the physically handicapped persons
>> >> when
>> >>
>> >> promotions are being made to such identified posts will be computed by
>> >> taking
>> >>
>> >> into account the total number of vacancies that arise for being filled
>> >> by
>> >>
>> >> promotion in a recruitment year both in the non-identified as well as
>> >> identified
>> >>
>> >> posts. If the appropriate category of the physically handicapped
>> >> persons
>> >> are
>> >>
>> >> not available in the feeder grade from which promotion is being made
>> >> to
>> >> the
>> >> next
>> >>
>> >> higher grade of the identified posts, then an inter se exchange will
>> >> be
>> >>
>> >> permitted subject to the conditions that -
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> (i) the post to which promotion is to be made is one that can be held
>> >> by
>> >>
>> >> the category of the physically handicapped persons available in the
>> >> feeder
>> >>
>> >> grade; and
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> (ii) the reservation so exchanged is carried forward to the next three
>> >>
>> >> recruitment years after which the reservation shall lapse.?
>> >>
>> >> As per the aforesaid OM, reservation for physically handicapped in
>> >> Group
>> >>
>> >> C and D posts, even when filled by promotion, is prescribed.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 20.As noticed above, prior to the Disability Act coming into force,
>> >> the
>> >>
>> >> Government had, by administrative instructions, provided reservation
>> >> for
>> >>
>> >> physically handicapped persons in Group C and D posts. After the
>> >> Disability
>> >> Act
>> >>
>> >> came into force, such a reservation is now permissible even for Group
>> >> A
>> >> and
>> >> B
>> >>
>> >> posts. This led the DoPT to issue OM dated 18.12.1997. Referring to
>> >> Section
>> >> 33
>> >>
>> >> of the Disability Act, this OM mentions that the reservation stands
>> >> extended
>> >> to
>> >>
>> >> identified Group A and B posts filled through direct recruitment. In
>> >> this
>> >> OM,
>> >>
>> >> however, it is stated that such reservation would be termed as
>> >> horizontal
>> >>
>> >> reservation in contradistinction to the reservation of SC/ST
>> >> candidates
>> >> where
>> >>
>> >> reservation is available at horizontal as well as vertical level with
>> >> the
>> >>
>> >> principle of interlocking of vertical and horizontal reservations, as
>> >> laid
>> >> down
>> >>
>> >> by the Supreme Court in the case of Indira Sawhney v. Union of India
>> >> and
>> >> Ors.,
>> >>
>> >> AIR 1993 SC 477. Though as per this OM for Group A and B posts the
>> >> reservation
>> >>
>> >> was only at induction level, significantly corrigendum was issued by
>> >> the
>> >> DoPT
>> >>
>> >> vide OM dated 4.7.1997, which reads as under :-
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ?Subject: Reservation for the physically handicapped persons in Group
>> >> A
>> >> and
>> >> B
>> >>
>> >> Posts/Services under the Central Government.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The undersigned is directed to invite attention to this department's
>> >> O.M.
>> >> No.
>> >>
>> >> 36035/169/91-Estt.(SCT) dated 18.2.97 on the above subject and to say
>> >> that
>> >> it
>> >>
>> >> has been represented before the Government that the earmarking of
>> >> points
>> >> no.
>> >> 33,
>> >>
>> >> 67 and 100 in the prescribed register for reservation for the
>> >> physically
>> >>
>> >> handicapped would mean that the physically handicapped candidates may
>> >> have
>> >> to
>> >>
>> >> wait for a long time to get their turn for promotion. The suggestion
>> >> has
>> >> been
>> >>
>> >> considered and it has now been decided in partial modification of the
>> >> O.M.
>> >> cited
>> >>
>> >> above that the point number of 34 and 67 in cycle of 100 vacancies in
>> >> the
>> >> 100
>> >>
>> >> point register and be marked for reservation for physically
>> >> handicapped.
>> >> The
>> >>
>> >> other instructions contained in the aforesaid O.M. remains unchanged.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Sd/-
>> >>
>> >> (Y.G. Parande)
>> >>
>> >> Director?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 21.It is clear from the above that point No.34 and 67 in the cycle of
>> >> 100
>> >> are
>> >>
>> >> now earmarked for reservation for physically handicapped and, thus,
>> >> reservation
>> >>
>> >> is admissible even for Group A and B posts in promotion category and
>> >> not
>> >> only at
>> >>
>> >> the induction level. We are of the opinion that this OM is brought in
>> >> tune
>> >> with
>> >>
>> >> the letter and spirit behind Section 33 of the Disability Act. On
>> >>
>> >> interpretation of such a provision legal position is abundantly clear.
>> >> This
>> >> is
>> >>
>> >> a benevolent measure introduced to ameliorate the sufferings of
>> >> persons
>> >> who
>> >> are
>> >>
>> >> physically disabled. Such a provision is to be given the widest
>> >> possible
>> >>
>> >> interpretation. The objective is to achieve the purpose for which such
>> >> a
>> >>
>> >> provision is introduced by the Parliament. The Apex Court in Kunal
>> >> Singh
>> >> v.
>> >>
>> >> Union of India AIR 2003 SC 1623 held that:
>> >>
>> >> ``9. Chapter VI of the Act deals with employment relating to persons
>> >> with
>> >>
>> >> disabilities, who are yet to secure employment. Section 47, which
>> >> falls
>> >> in
>> >>
>> >> Chapter VIII, deals with an employee, who is already in service and
>> >> acquires
>> >> a
>> >>
>> >> disability during his service. It must be borne in mind that Section 2
>> >> of
>> >> the
>> >>
>> >> Act has given distinct and different definitions of ``disability'` and
>> >> ``person
>> >>
>> >> with disability'`. It is well settled that in the same enactment if
>> >> two
>> >> distinct
>> >>
>> >> definitions are given defining a word/expression, they must be
>> >> understood
>> >>
>> >> accordingly in terms of the definition. It must be remembered that a
>> >> person
>> >> does
>> >>
>> >> not acquire or suffer disability by choice. An employee, who acquires
>> >> disability
>> >>
>> >> during his service, is sought to be protected under Section 47 of the
>> >> Act
>> >>
>> >> specifically. Such employee, acquiring disability, if not protected,
>> >> would
>> >> not
>> >>
>> >> only suffer himself, but possibly all those who depend on him would
>> >> also
>> >> suffer.
>> >>
>> >> The very frame and contents of Section 47 clearly indicate its
>> >> mandatory
>> >> nature.
>> >>
>> >> The very opening part of the section reads ``no establishment shall
>> >> dispense
>> >>
>> >> with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during
>> >> his
>> >>
>> >> service'`. The section further provides that if an employee after
>> >> acquiring
>> >>
>> >> disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, could be
>> >> shifted
>> >> to
>> >> some
>> >>
>> >> other post with the same pay scale and service benefits; if it is not
>> >> possible
>> >>
>> >> to adjust the employee against any post he will be kept on a
>> >> supernumerary
>> >> post
>> >>
>> >> until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of
>> >> superannuation,
>> >>
>> >> whichever is earlier. Added to this no promotion shall be denied to a
>> >> person
>> >>
>> >> merely on the ground of his disability as is evident from sub-section
>> >> (2)
>> >> of
>> >>
>> >> Section 47. Section 47 contains a clear directive that the employer
>> >> shall
>> >> not
>> >>
>> >> dispense with or reduce in rank an employee who acquires a disability
>> >> during
>> >> the
>> >>
>> >> service. In construing a provision of a social beneficial enactment
>> >> that
>> >> too
>> >>
>> >> dealing with disabled persons intended to give them equal
>> >> opportunities,
>> >>
>> >> protection of rights and full participation, the view that advances
>> >> the
>> >> object
>> >>
>> >> of the Act and serves its purpose must be preferred to the one which
>> >> obstructs
>> >>
>> >> the object and paralyses the purpose of the Act. Language of Section
>> >> 47
>> >> is
>> >> plain
>> >>
>> >> and certain casting statutory obligation on the employer to protect an
>> >> employee
>> >>
>> >> acquiring disability during service.'`
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 22.This Court dealing with Section 33 of the Disability Act in All
>> >> India
>> >>
>> >> Confederation of the Blind v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. 2005
>> >> (123)
>> >> DLT
>> >> 244
>> >>
>> >> clearly laid down that the Disability act is a benevolent legislation
>> >> and
>> >> it
>> >> has
>> >>
>> >> been repeatedly held that benevolent enactments ought to be given
>> >> liberal
>> >> and
>> >>
>> >> expansive interpretation, and not narrow or restrictive construction
>> >> (see
>> >> Madan
>> >>
>> >> Singh Shekhawat v. Union of India; 1996 (6) SCC 459; Deepal Girishbhai
>> >> Soni
>> >> v.
>> >>
>> >> United India Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2004 SC 2107; Babu Parasakaikadi
>> >> v.
>> >> Babu
>> >>
>> >> 2004 (1) SCC 681).
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 23.Where alternative constructions are possible the court must give
>> >> effect
>> >> to
>> >>
>> >> that which will be responsible for the smooth working of the system
>> >> for
>> >> which
>> >>
>> >> the statute has been enacted rather than the one which would put
>> >> hindrances
>> >> in
>> >>
>> >> its way.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 24.If the choice is between two interpretations, the narrower of which
>> >> would
>> >>
>> >> fail to achieve the manifest purpose of the legislation we should
>> >> avoid a
>> >>
>> >> construction which would reduce the legislation to futility and should
>> >> rather
>> >>
>> >> accept the bolder construction based on the view that Parliament would
>> >> legislate
>> >>
>> >> only for the purpose of bringing about an effective result. - Nokes v.
>> >> Doncaster
>> >>
>> >> Amalgamated Collieries Ltd (1940) A.C. 1014. Where alternative
>> >> constructions
>> >> are
>> >>
>> >> equally open, that alternative is to be chosen which will be
>> >> consistent
>> >> with
>> >> the
>> >>
>> >> smooth working of the system which the statute purports to be
>> >> regulating;
>> >> and
>> >>
>> >> that alternative is to be rejected which will introduce uncertainty,
>> >> fiction
>> >> or
>> >>
>> >> confusion into the working of the system.- Shannon Realities Ltd v.
>> >> Ville
>> >> de
>> >> St
>> >>
>> >> Michel (1924) A.C. 185. [Maxwell pg. 45].
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 25.It is well settled principle of law that as the statute is an edict
>> >> of
>> >> the
>> >>
>> >> Legislature, the conventional way of interpreting or construing a
>> >> statute
>> >> is
>> >> to
>> >>
>> >> seek the intention of legislature. The intention of legislature
>> >> assimilates
>> >> two
>> >>
>> >> aspects; one aspect carries the concept of ?meaning?, i.e., what the
>> >> word
>> >> means
>> >>
>> >> and another aspect conveys the concept of ?purpose? and ?object? or
>> >> the
>> >> ?reason?
>> >>
>> >> or ?spirit? pervading through the statute. The process of
>> >> construction,
>> >>
>> >> therefore, combines both the literal and purposive approaches.
>> >> However,
>> >>
>> >> necessity of interpretation would arise only where the language of a
>> >> statutory
>> >>
>> >> provision is ambiguous, not clear or where two views are possible or
>> >> where
>> >> the
>> >>
>> >> provision gives a different meaning defeating the object of the
>> >> statute.
>> >> If
>> >> the
>> >>
>> >> language is clear and unambiguous, no need of interpretation would
>> >> arise.
>> >> In
>> >>
>> >> this regard, a Constitution Bench of five Judges of the Supreme Court
>> >> in
>> >> R.S.
>> >>
>> >> Nayak v A.R. Antulay, AIR 1984 SC 684 has held:
>> >>
>> >> ??If the words of the Statute are clear and unambiguous, it is the
>> >> plainest
>> >> duty
>> >>
>> >> of the Court to give effect to the natural meaning of the words used
>> >> in
>> >> the
>> >>
>> >> provision. The question of construction arises only in the event of an
>> >> ambiguity
>> >>
>> >> or the plain meaning of the words used in the Statute would be self
>> >> defeating.?
>> >>
>> >> (para 18)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 26.In Grasim Industries Ltd. v Collector of Customs, Bombay, (2002) 4
>> >> SCC
>> >> 297
>> >>
>> >> has followed the same principle and observed:
>> >>
>> >> 27.?Where the words are clear and there is no obscurity, and there is
>> >> no
>> >>
>> >> ambiguity and the intention of the legislature is clearly conveyed,
>> >> there
>> >> is
>> >> no
>> >>
>> >> scope for court to take upon itself the task of amending or altering
>> >> the
>> >>
>> >> statutory provisions.? (para 10)
>> >>
>> >> 28.Once this matter is seen from this perspective and we have to
>> >> ensure
>> >> that
>> >>
>> >> persons suffering from disability also grow in stature and for this
>> >> reason
>> >>
>> >> reservation is provided in the employment, limiting the same only at
>> >> the
>> >>
>> >> induction level and not in the matter of promotions would be totally
>> >> unjust.
>> >>
>> >> Therefore, in view of the aforesaid provision, coupled with the
>> >> interpretation
>> >>
>> >> of the Government itself provided vide OM dated 20.11.1989 and
>> >> corrigendum
>> >> dated
>> >>
>> >> 4.7.1997, reservation has to be provided in the matter of promotions
>> >> as
>> >> well.
>> >>
>> >> 29.In this context we now examine as to whether persons like the
>> >> respondent
>> >>
>> >> could be deprived of the benefit on the basis of the purported policy
>> >> decision.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 30.We feel that as per the petitioner's own argument, purported policy
>> >> decision
>> >>
>> >> is arbitrary and irrational and there is no justification from
>> >> deviating
>> >> from
>> >>
>> >> the Government's policy contained in aforesaid OMs. The post of COS is
>> >> a
>> >> Group
>> >>
>> >> C post and reservation to Group C post is provided as per the DoPT
>> >> circular
>> >> and
>> >>
>> >> the Railways own policy. Therefore, in normal course there appears to
>> >> be
>> >> no
>> >>
>> >> reason not to provide reservation for persons suffering with
>> >> disability
>> >> to
>> >> this
>> >>
>> >> post. The so-called policy decision of the petitioner, to ensure safe
>> >> carriage
>> >>
>> >> of goods and passengers, whereby the petitioner do not want to give
>> >> reservation
>> >>
>> >> for the said post to physically handicapped persons is not only unjust
>> >> but
>> >>
>> >> aggravates the suffering of persons living/employed with disability.
>> >> Further,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> it is to be noted that the petitioner do not deny that a person
>> >> suffering
>> >> from
>> >>
>> >> physical disability is entitled to promotion to this very post in
>> >> normal
>> >> course.
>> >>
>> >> We fail to understand as to how when such physically handicapped
>> >> person
>> >> gets
>> >>
>> >> promotion to the post of COS in the normal course would be able to
>> >> discharge
>> >> the
>> >>
>> >> function of that post satisfactorily but would not be able to do so if
>> >> he
>> >> is
>> >>
>> >> promoted to this post under the reservation quota. Ironically, this
>> >> was
>> >> the
>> >>
>> >> argument of learned counsel for the petitioner before the Tribunal
>> >> that
>> >> in
>> >> the
>> >>
>> >> normal course, despite being handicap, the respondent herein was
>> >> eligible
>> >> to
>> >> be
>> >>
>> >> considered in the selection for promotion to Group C post of COS
>> >> subject
>> >> to
>> >> his
>> >>
>> >> qualification in the selection. If selection by promotion to such a
>> >> post
>> >> under
>> >>
>> >> normal channel is available to a person like the respondent and his
>> >> handicapped-
>> >>
>> >> ness, in that eventuality, does not come in way of discharging his
>> >> duties,
>> >> the
>> >>
>> >> reason for not providing reservation on this ground is contradictory
>> >> in
>> >> terms
>> >>
>> >> and cannot be sustained. Such a justification for denying reservation
>> >> is
>> >>
>> >> totally irrational and arbitrary. It, rather, depicts closed and
>> >> narrow
>> >> minded
>> >>
>> >> approach of the petitioner, which is unsustainable in view of the
>> >> discussion
>> >>
>> >> above.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 31.As a consequence of the aforesaid discussion, we uphold the
>> >> judgment
>> >> of
>> >> the
>> >>
>> >> Tribunal and dismiss these writ petitions with costs quantified at
>> >> Rs.10,000/-
>> >>
>> >> each.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> (A.K. SIKRI)
>> >>
>> >> JUDGE
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> (VIPIN SANGHI)
>> >>
>> >> JUDGE
>> >>
>> >> December 07, 2007
>> >>
>> >> nsk
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> To unsubscribe send a message to
>> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> 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
>> >>
>> >
>> > To unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > 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
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> 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
>>
>
> To unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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
To unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
