Respected access indians getting promotion is major expectation from the able visually challanged community of the Maharashtra. Many people who are restlessly waiting for promotion since long time of five to seven year are expecting that they could be promoted as a clerk very soon due to that perticular judgement. The issue of denied promotion should be rais in next hearing of these cases. The reason for that is the junior sighted persons are promoted but totally blind employees are not promoted though they are proffessionally able and sinior but niglected due to there totally blindness. proper management is needed for the training in computer operating. In Maharashtra proper computer training is not available except Mumbai and Pune. one another thing is that the government aided n.g.o.,s educational institute and colleges are not serious for implimentation for the reservation of blind. they should be inspired and bounded for that. Many net set passed, b.ed. and music visharad blind persons in Maharashtra are waiting for there rehablitation. Please look in these all matter. thanking you, Mahesh.
On 1/29/11, Harish Kotian <har...@accessindia.org.in> wrote: > Hi Vamshi > Guess you may have read it in a hurry. The order states the medical officer > cannot declare unfit... > So there is no concern and the order is just what you were looking for. > Harish Kotian. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Vamshi. G" <gvamsh...@gmail.com> > To: <accessindia@accessindia.org.in> > Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 6:34 PM > Subject: Re: [AI] Maharashta litigation > > > Dear Madam, > > Here is para 11. > 11 The Health Department of State of Maharashtra shall issue > instructions to all the Medical Boards and Superintendents of the Public > Hospitals that when a candidate, selected for a post which is reserved for > a physically challenged person, appears for medical examination, he > cannot be declared unfit or unsuitable for the post by the concerned > Medical Board or Superintendent of the Public Hospital on the ground > that he is medically unfit because of that particular disability. > > I have a few concerns here; > > The order states that medical officers can't declare a person with > disability medically unfit if the post is reserved for physically > challenged. > > 1. What if a physically challenged person gets the job in the open > category? > > 2. What in the case of promotions where no posts are reserved for > physically challenged? > > -- > G. Vamshi > PH Res : +91 877-2243861 > Mobile: +91 9949349497 > E-mail ID: > gvamsh...@gmail.com > Skype: gvamshi81 > > www.retinaindia.org > From darkness unto light > > > > > On 1/28/11, Pamnani <kanchanpamn...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> Sharing the entire order with the group. It will help other states too. >> Vaanshi please read para 11 it will be good for you. >> OK it is a 11 page order and the moderator refuses to give me permission >> to >> attach it.......So here goes >> >> Order dated 15 January 2011.pdf >> >> table with 3 columns and 3 rows >> ASN >> 1 >> WP-3494andors..sxw >> 45 >> IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION >> WRIT PETITION NO. 3294 OF 2010 >> table end >> >> Mrs. Nilima Anant Surve. ..Petitioner. >> Vs. >> The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents. >> WITH >> WRIT PETITION NO.7824 OF 2007 >> Mrs. Nandita Dubey/Tripathi. ..Petitioner. >> Vs. >> The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents. >> WITH >> PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 70 OF 2002 >> ILS Legal and Centre and ors. ..Petitioner. >> Vs. >> The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents. >> WITH >> PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.75 OF 2006 >> Satyashodh and others. ..Petitioner. >> Vs. >> The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents. >> WITH >> PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.129 OF 2003 >> The National Federation of Blind >> Maharashtra. ..Petitioner. >> Vs. >> The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents. >> ASN 2 WP-3494andors..sxw >> WITH >> CIVIL APPLICATION NO.50 OF 2007 >> IN >> PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.129 OF 2003 >> The National Federation of Blind, >> Maharashtra. ..Petitioner. >> Vs. >> The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents. >> WITH >> PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.139 OF 2006 >> Maharashtra Rajya Apang Karmachari >> Sanghatana. ..Petitioner. >> Vs. >> The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents. >> W ITH >> CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 54 OF 2007 >> IN >> PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.139 OF 2006 >> Sudhakar Ramchandra Karegaonkar and ors. ..Petitioners >> Vs. >> The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents. >> WITH >> PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.225 OF 2009 >> Harshad Govind Jadhav and ors. ..Petitioners. >> Vs. >> The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents. >> WITH >> PUB LIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.44 OF 2009 >> ASN 3 WP-3494andors..sxw >> India Centre for Human Right and Law >> and ors. ..Petitioners. >> Vs. >> The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents. >> WITH >> PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.118 OF 2010 >> Rashtriya Apang Vikas Mahasangh. ..Petitioners. >> Vs. >> The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents. >> Mr.Chetan Agarwal, Advocate for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.3294 >> of 2010. >> Mr.Ravi Kadam, Advocate General along with Mr. N.P.Deshpande, >> A.G.P. >> for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Rahul Walvekar for Resondent No.5. >> Mr.A.A.Inamdar i/by M.S.Karnik for Respondent No.3 in Writ Petition >> No.7824 >> of 2007. >> Mr. Uday Warunjikar for the petitioner in PIL No.75/2006 with PIL No. >> 129/2003. Ms. Kanchan Pamnani for Respondent No.5. Mrs. Gayatri Singh >> along >> with >> Kranti L.C. for the petitioner in Original Side PIL No.118/2010. Mr. >> Rungta, >> Advocate for Nilima Surve present. Mr. Satish Gavai, Princiapl Secretary, >> Social Justice Department present. Mr.J.N.Rathod, Dy. Secretary, Social >> Justice Department present Mr. B.R.Jadhav, Commissioner of Disabailities >> present. >> Mr.A.P.Valvi from Commissioner of Disabilities present. Mr. Pradip Vyas, >> Secretary, Finance Department present. Mrs.N.M.Shaikh, Dy. Secretary, >> Finance >> Department present. Mr.V.N.More, Secretary, General Administration >> Department present. Mr.S.N.Rankhambe, Dy. Secretary, General >> Administration >> Department >> present. Mr.Abhay N. Tripathy, Secretary, MPSC present. Dr. Bhushan >> Punani, >> Executive Director of Blind People’s Association, Ahmedabad present. >> Mr.K.K.Kothari, >> N.G.O. Sight Savers present. >> ASN 4 WP-3494andors..sxw >> Mr. Sam Taraporvala, Associate Professor, HOD of Sociology, St. Xavier >> College present. >> Mr. Prashant M. Naik, Project Manager, XRCVC present. >> Mr. K. Ramkrishnan, General Secretary, National Association for the >> Blind (India) present. >> Mr. Rajesh, Assistant General Manager, RBI Nagpur present. >> Mr. Satish Gavai, Princiapl Secretary, Social Justice Department present. >> Major General Cardoso, Chairman, Rehabilitation Centre of India >> present. >> Mr.H.P.Kotian, Assistant General Manager (Primary Data Centre) R.B.I. >> Present. >> Mr. Prakash Padangale from National Federation of Blinds present. >> CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & >> S. >> J. VAZIFDAR, J. SATURDAY, JANUARY 15, 2011. >> PC : >> Leave to add Union of India as party-respondent through the >> Secretary of Human Resources Department and also Secretary Social >> Justice Department, New Delhi. >> Leave also to add Medical Council of India as party- >> respondent. >> Having heard the representatives of the Non Government >> Organizations, it clearly appears that there are a number of technical >> devices and software which are specially designed for visually >> challenged persons and they are available in the market and if such >> technical devices and software are made available by the State >> Government to the visually challenged persons, then their employment >> opportunities and efficiency in service would be greater. >> ASN >> 5 WP-3494andors..sxw >> When the Disabilities Act provides for reservation of one >> percent posts for the visually challenged persons in public sector, such >> reservation would be meaningless, if such technical devices or software >> are not provided by the State Government from the public exchequer. >> We therefore, constitute the following group to assist all the Government >> Departments through the Department of Social Justice for procuring the >> technical devices and the software specially prepared for visually >> challenged persons: >> >> table with 7 columns and 7 rows >> i. >> Principal Secretary, Social Justice Department; >> ii. >> Principal Secretary, Education Department; >> iii. >> Principal Secretary, Finance Department; >> iv. >> The Commissioner of Disabilities; >> v. >> Dr. >> Bhushan >> Punani, >> Executive >> Director, >> Blind >> People’s Association, Ahmedabad; >> vi. >> Mr. K.A.Kothari, Sight Savers; >> table end >> >> vii. >> Dr. Sam Taraporevala, Associate Professor, St. Xavier’s College and >> Director >> of Xavier’s Resource Centre for the Visually Challenged; >> viii. >> Ms. Kanchan Pamnani, Advocate; >> ix. >> Mr. H.P. Kotian, Asstt. General Manager (Primary Data Centre) Reserve Bank >> of India; >> x. >> Mr. K. Ramkrishanan, General Secretary, National Association of Blind >> (India); >> xi. >> Mr. Prashant Naik, Project Manager, St. Xavier’s Resource Centre for the >> Visually challenged. >> 4 We are informed by Dr. Bhushan Punani, Executive >> Director, Blind People’s Association, Ahmedabad who is also a member >> of Drafting Committee for the New Law on Persons with Disabilities >> ASN 6 WP-3494andors..sxw >> that visually challenged persons have a large scope for employment in >> Information Technology Sector and Banking sector. The above group >> will also explore the prospects for visually challenged persons in the >> above sectors and the training to be provided to visually challenged >> persons seeking employment in public or private sectors and also to the >> persons with this disability already in service and those who will be >> recruited in future. >> 5 Having heard the representatives of the Non Government >> Organizations, the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Advocate >> General and the Principal Secretary, Social Justice Department and other >> officers of the Government of Maharashtra, it appears that under the >> IEDSS at the secondary level and Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, funds >> provided by Government of India are to be allocated to the various >> departments of the State of Maharashtra. >> It appears that as against the funds for which the State of >> Maharashtra had requested for persons with disabilities, the funds >> allocated are much less. >> 6 The Union of India shall therefore, show cause as to why >> this Court should not give appropriate directions to see that >> implementation of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, >> Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act,1995 is not defeated in >> the State of Maharashtra by allocation of insufficient funds to the State >> of Maharashtra. >> ASN 7 WP-3494andors..sxw >> It appears that as against the funds for which the State of >> Maharashtra had requested for persons with disabilities, the funds >> allocated are much less. >> 7 The learned counsel for the petitioners and the >> representatives of the Non Government Organizations submit that the >> Social Justice Department of Union of India had issued a Notification >> in the year 2001 under Section 32 of the P.W.D. Act and the said >> notification has been revised in the year 2004 and 2007. The schedule to >> the notification gives the particulars of the posts which are identified >> as >> posts on which persons with disabilities can be appointed and there is >> no reason why the same list should not be adopted by the State of >> Maharashtra, as has been done by the States of Rajasthan, Gujarat, Uttar >> Pradesh and Uttaranchal. >> 8 Having heard the representatives of the petitioners and the >> State Government Officers, we are of the view that the Government shall >> show cause why the State Government should not be directed to apply >> the notification issued by the Central Government where the posts are >> similar and only the nomenclature of posts is different. It will be open >> to >> the State Government to make necessary changes in the nomenclature of >> the posts identified by the Central Government which are carrying the >> Sixth Pay Commission pay scale. The State Government shall therefore, >> show cause, within six weeks from today, as to why the said notification >> should not be applied to the State. >> ASN 8 WP-3494andors..sxw >> 9 According to the State Government there are 2,44,000 posts >> in the State Government service and the list containing break up is also >> produced at the time of hearing. It is stated that applying three per cent >> reservation, 10690 posts are required to be earmarked for persons with >> disabilities and out of them as many as 10045 are already filled in by >> persons with disabilities. >> This assertion is disputed by the learned counsel for the >> petitioners and it is submitted that due weightage is not given to the >> persons with disabilities in each of the three categories. >> In view of the above controversy, we direct that detailed >> break up of the posts on which person in each category of the >> disabilities are appointed so far, should be furnished within six weeks. >> Even in the category of visually challenged persons, the State >> Government shall give break up of the persons indicating those with full >> loss of vision and those having low vision. >> 10 At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners submit >> that reservation of three percent is being applied to the vacancies >> arising >> after coming into force of the Persons With Disabilities Act but three per >> cent reservation should be applied to the total number of posts which is >> more than 11,48,605. >> We are not expressing any opinion on the controversy and it >> is kept open. It will be considered in future. >> ASN 9 WP-3494andors..sxw >> 11 The Health Department of State of Maharashtra shall issue >> instructions to all the Medical Boards and Superintendents of the Public >> Hospitals that when a candidate, selected for a post which is reserved for >> a physically challenged person, appears for medical examination, he >> cannot be declared unfit or unsuitable for the post by the concerned >> Medical Board or Superintendent of the Public Hospital on the ground >> that he is medically unfit because of that particular disability. >> 12 Major General Cardozo states that very often members of >> the Medical Board who examine persons with disabilities do not have a >> proper perspective about the object of medical examination of persons >> with disabilities. He suggests that the Medical Council of India should >> include, as a part of syllabus for under graduate as well as post graduate >> medical courses, a special subject pertaining to “Persons with >> Disabilities”. >> The Medical Council of India is permitted to be joined as >> party respondent and shall respond to the above suggestion at the next >> hearing. >> 13 The learned Advocate General states that the State >> Government has prepared a draft Action Plan for Persons with >> Disabilities to be implemented from April, 2011 onwards. The State >> Government shall, within four weeks from today, publish the Draft >> Action Plan for the period from April,2011 onwards for Persons with >> Disabilities on the Government web site. It is clearly understood that, it >> is a draft action plan and therefore, Statement Government will be at >> ASN 10 WP-3494andors..sxw >> liberty to modify it and upon modification, when the final action plan is >> formulated, such final plan shall also be displayed on the web site. >> 14 It is stated that District Social Welfare officers in each >> District have the Maharashtra State Welfare of Persons with Disabilities >> Action Plan, 2001. It will be open to the concerned persons to approach >> the said Officer for getting a copy of the said Action Plan. >> 15 One of the grievances is that by Government Resolution >> dated 13th February, 2008 the Technical Education Department has >> instructed all the technical institutions not to recruit a person who is >> totally blind in higher technical education. The State Government shall >> look into the matter and will take necessary remedial measures and >> submit a report within eight weeks from today. . >> 16 A suggestion has been made to amend the format of the >> Annual Confidential Report of the Government employees and the >> public sector to include an item about the concerned employee’s attitude >> towards persons with disabilities. >> The learned Advocate General states that the State >> Government will consider this suggestion and indicate that steps taken >> within eight weeks from today. . >> 17 The State Government shall within eight weeks from today >> publish compilation of the Statutory provisions, Government >> ASN 11 WP-3494andors..sxw >> Notifications, Resolutions and Circulars regarding the persons with >> disabilities, whether they are in the matter of admission to educational >> institutions or for employment in Government service or any other >> organization or in any other respect. >> 18 It was also discussed that most of the children who are deaf >> and dumb have some hearing defect since birth, which can be detected >> within a week of their birth but because it is not detected in infancy, >> the >> child does not learn how to speak. If the defect/ impairment is detected >> early, remedial measures can be adopted effectively. >> The learned Advocate General states that the Draft Action >> Plan, 2011 prepared by the State Government includes a provision of >> requiring public hospitals to go for early detection of all disabilities >> so >> that remedial measures can be taken at the earliest. >> 19 The matters shall be listed for further hearing on 18th >> March, 2011 at 3.00 p. m. >> CHIEF JUSTICE >> S.J. >> VAZIFDAR, J. >> >> Kanchan Pamnani >> Advocate & Solicitor >> 9, Suleman Chambers, >> Battery Street, Colaba, >> Mumbai - 400 039. >> >> >> > > > > >
