Subject: My experience in our judisial system
Dear Friends, The following mail is from a Visually Challenged friend's, who brings out the difficulty faced by him before the Madras High Court. Please go through the mail in detail and help him if you can, please. DINAKAR ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sudarsanan ." <sendmail2sudarsa...@yahoo.com> To: <td.dina...@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 12:17 PM Subject: my experience in our judisial system Dear friend, Subject: several writ dismissals of visually challenged in Madras high court and his horrible experiences in our judicial system. Kindly spare time to read this message in which, I explained my struggle for justice for several years, still justice not done to me. I here by giving history of struggle for justice. My name is sudarsanan. I am visually impaired person (partially blind) and aged about 42 years. I completed my diploma in mechanical engineering in 1991 and diploma in refrigeration and air conditioning in 1997. I suffered genetic problem of retinitis pigmentosa in both eye during the period of End of 1980's (on set of disability is from 1983 as per medical panel report of vocational rehabilitation center for handicapped by govt of India photocopy of report with me). They issued ID card in 1993. I registered as a partially blind in special employment exchange for handicapped in 1992. I took technical teaching line as an instructor (junior training officer) to teach in mechanical related trades like A/C mechanic, fitter, turners extra in private ITI. This private ITI is approved by director general of employment and training, New Delhi, under union ministry of labour. I am working in this type of different institution from 1994. This post comes under the group C. In December 8, 2000 government of Tamil nadu announcing the recruitment of 237 junior training officer post in government run industrial training institutes by diploma holders on the basis of seniority in employment exchanges. This was published in THE HINDU newspaper on 9-12-2000. As per equal opportunities of people with disability act 1995 they should give 3% for handicapped persons that is 1% for ortho 1% for hearing impaired 1% for visually impaired which means two posts must be allocated for visually handicapped persons. I approached the appointing authority of above said post director of employment and training through the letter in 9 January 2001 and approaching state commissioner for disabled for help. Disable commissioner recommend my name for the post through his letter to appointing authority (copy of that letter is sent to me). But they didn't respond to me so, I sent advocate notice to him and district employment officer for handicapped. After that they stating that allotted 6 post for physically handicapped is sponsored up to 1985, your seniority comes only 1992 because of that you are not considered for sponsoring. But they didn't answer how many visually handicapped persons appointed? So I approach madras high court for justice by filing writ petition in 2001 History of First writ petition dismissal on 2001: It was dismissed because of the technical ground that petitioners not challenge the lack of seniority reason of the government side reply so that writ petition is not sustainable and petitioner given liberty file another writ petition. Following is the main lines in the judgment. " Though the petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking to issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to include the petitioner's name in the list of the eligible candidates for providing employment as Junior Training Officer in Government Industrial Training Institutes as per the announcement published on 9.12.2000 in 'The Hindu' dated 9.12.2000, the petitioner's request had already been rejected by the respondents on certain grounds. Hence, the petitioner without challenging that order, cannot sustain the prayer sought for in this writ petition. The petitioner is at liberty to challenge those orders by filing a separate writ petition. Giving such liberty, the writ petition is dismissed" In view of my financial position, I'm not able to file another writ petition. In such situation one advocate firm comes to help me with the help of that firm I filed second writ petition in 2003, before filing second writ petition another advocate notice is send, it clearly ask how many visual impaired persons are appointed. History of second writ petition dismissal on 2004 It was again dismissed on petitioner does not able to clear what statutory provision, the petitioner have, irrespective of seniority employment officer side bound to sponsored him? Following is the main lines in the judgment. " The impugned order is put in issue by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is entitled to preference under section 33 of the persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full participation) Act, 1995, which provides that every appropriate Government shall appoint in every establishment such percentage of vacancies not less that three percent for persons of class of persons with disability of which one per cent each shall be reserved for persons suffering from (1) blindness or low vision (2) hearing impairment (3) locomotors disability or cerebral palsy in the posts identified for each disability. I am not able to understand how that provision is made applicable to the impugned order. The impugned order is one issued by the District Employment Officer, stating that the candidates registered upto 24.6.1985 were only sponsored against the vacancies of Junior Training Officers at Govt. I.T.I. As the petitioner has registered his name only in the year 1992 (sp.17.6.1992) his name has not been sponsored against the vacancies on the ground that he lacks seniority. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not able submit to point out any statutory provision as to that even in the Employment Exchange they are bound to sponsor the physically challenged persons irrespective of seniority. Hence the writ petition is dismissed" But section 33 clearly says 3% quota for disabled and section 36 clearly says if no disabled person is found in recruiting year it should be carry forward in to next years successively in pwd act. Both writ petition does not give answer about 1% visually handicapped quota. So I filed another writ appeal in 2004 through the help of same advocate firm. Mean time, I approached the director of employment and training in 2007 asking information about how many visually handicapped person appointed in junior training officer post under the right to information act 2005 they told in their letter no visually handicapped persons appointed because of their inability further they say visually handicapped quota is filled by the another person. Now it very clear they did not follow 1% quota for visually handicapped persons. On 28 February 2009 union public service commission published recruitment notification in THE HINDU daily news paper says training officer post vacancies in director general of employment and training is suitable for blind, low vision persons and further, it says diploma in mechanical engineering qualification is essential with 5 years experience in machine related work or teaching/training in technical institute. But this post in-group B. this training officer post is in identified job list in-group B in government of India's social justice ministry. History of writ appeal dismissal on 2009 In the first hearing our side proved non-filling of visually handicapped by showing the Right to information act letter, It says visually handicapped quota filled by another person. So Madras high court division bench asked the govt pleader to produce seniority list. Now first respondent filed counter affidavit in which he says following lines. 1. Further submitted that as per the provision of Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act 1995 herein after referred to as the Disabilities Act, seniority list of the persons who have registered with the second respondent's office has been maintained. Section 33 of the Act provides reservation for persons with the disabilities, but it does not bar the criteria of the seniority, which is being maintained. Since the seniority of the appellant namely 17.6.1992 did not come within the cut off date of 24.6.1985, his name could not be sponsored for the above vacancies. From the second respondent's office nearly 104 names of disability persons via persons suffering from blindness of low vision, hearing impairment and loco motor disability or cerebral palsy were sponsored to the Commissioner ate of Employment and Training, Chennai. Similarly, the names were sponsored from the Special Employment for Physically Handicapped Offices from all over Tamilnadu. I state that six vacancies were filled up by the first respondent with the persons who are Physically Handicapped Persons (ortho), out of six vacancies which the reserved for the Physically Handicapped Persons. The persons who are suffering from blindness or low vision and hearing impairment were not selected due to the nature of works viz. handling of tools and equipments for conducting the classes and also theory classes. 2. With regard to the averments contained in Grounds 8 to 10 are concerned, it is submitted that in reply to the representation given by the appellant, it has been informed that since his seniority viz. 17.6.1992 did not come within the cut off date of 24.6.1985, his name could not be sponsored for the above vacancies. 3. It is submitted that the Special Employment Office forwarded the name of the persons who are Physically Handicapped in accordance's with the seniority list, which is being maintained by them. Hence, the order passed by the Learned Single Judge is legal and in accordance In this situation my advocate says why they now says this non-suitability instead of not telling this in earlier reply in 2001. So division bench asked the government side to produce seniority list. But government side now interpretation the my advocate notice in the following ways, Since the advocate notice does not specifically ask the appointments of blind persons. It generally talk about physically handicapped persons, so employment officer and appointing authority reply is correct and quoting the following lines from my advocate notice. "Because they are Physically Handicapped Persons, thereby depriving employment opportunity to my client and many others like him" Now division bench says reply is correct for the advocate notice. So writ appeal is not sustainable because your advocate notices itself talk about physical handicapped persons not specifically asking the blind persons. When my advocate argues it violates the section 33 of PWD Act 1995, which clearly says 1% quota for blind and low vision persons. But division bench says, it has to challenge separately and giving liberty given petitioner to file another writ petition and then dismissed the writ appeal. During these herring times government pleader submit the appointing authorities report in witch he says technical committee advised not to appoint blind persons to these post because of machine involvement and electrical circuits involvement. So commissioner instructed the employment officer not to sponsor the blind persons for this post. In my advocate notice, it clearly states that, because of non reply for my client letter on 9-1-2001, he issue the advocate notice to them after that only all other things come, so I'm not able to understand how this interpretation is acceptable. I physically present during the writ appeal hearing with my mobility stick. At one point of time, I very closely standing before division bench, because of arguments is in low voice at that time judges noticed me then asked me come to closer and sit advocate allotted seat. In this present position, if it is filed in the Supreme Court, it takes another 10 to 15 years, so my advocate firm advise me to file writ petition to challenge not suitability issue and seek remedy for appointment on the basis of affidavit in which, he says my name is sponsored to TNEB for technical assistant post. In August 2009, I asked the physically handicapped employment exchange, what are the post identified for the diploma mechanical engineering blind persons under RTI ACT. He states junior training officer post in government industrial training institute is identified for blind persons. Several contradictions are there in the affidavits and giving false information's in the court. Kindly advise in this matter. Thanking you, Yours, E.Sudarsanan Land line no 044-26624708. Mobile 0-9444009839. ______ Please feel free to pass your comments, feedbacks & new ideas to the below menntioned contact details. Email: saravanan.ramado...@gmail.com saravanan_2...@hotmail.com ******* The harder the conflicts, the more glorious the triumph - Thomas Paine. True friendship consists not inn multitude of friends, but in their worth and value - Ben Jonson. ###### Adieu. Saravanan.R $$$$$$$$$ To unsubscribe send a message to accessindia-requ...@accessindia.org.in 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
