It is good and pleasing to see the use of strong language by the CCPD against the inept functioning of MSJ and E. I hope they don't turn a blind eye to this order as well (no pun intended :P).
On 24/11/2012, avinash shahi <[email protected]> wrote: > Thank you sir for sharing these Landmark judgements. > We all should read > On 11/24/12, Prashant Ranjan Verma <[email protected]> wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> Please make a note of the two important judgements issued by Mr. Prasanna >> Kumar Pincha, Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities. >> >> These two judgements relate to identification of jobs and common exam >> writing guidelines. >> >> I only wish earlier CCPD's had shown such remarkable courage and >> activism. >> >> >> >> The complete text of the two judgements is copied below. The same is also >> available on CCPD website. >> >> >> ***** Regarding identification of posts ******* >> >> >> >> >> >> In the Court of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities >> >> >> >> >> >> Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment >> >> >> >> >> Case No. 859/1011/12-13 >> Dated: 23.11.2012 >> >> >> >> In the matter of: >> >> Suo-motu >> >> >> >> Versus >> >> >> >> Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, >> >> Department of Disability Affairs, >> >> Through : Secretary, >> >> Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. >> ... Respondent >> >> >> >> Date of Hearing : 20.11.2012 >> >> >> >> Present :- >> >> >> >> 1. Shri K.V.S. Rao, Director >> . On behalf of Respondent >> >> 2. Non appeared. >> . On behalf of the Complainant >> >> >> >> O R D E R >> >> >> >> 1. Section 32 of the Persons with Disabilities >> (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, >> 1995, hereinafter referred to as the Act, provides as under:- >> >> ""Every appropriate Government shall (a) identify posts in the >> establishments which can be reserved for the persons with disability; (b) >> at periodical intervals not exceeding three years, review the list of >> posts >> identified and up-date the list taking into consideration the >> developments >> in technology." >> >> >> >> >> >> 2. The list of identified posts for persons with disabilities >> under Section 32 of the said Act was last issued vide Ministry of Social >> Justice and Empowerment's Notification Nos.16-70/2004-DD-III dated >> 18.1.2007 >> for Group A and B posts and dated 15.3.2007 for Group C and D posts >> respectively. Going by the mandate of Section 32 of the said Act, >> issuance >> of a revised/updated list of identified posts in Group A and B fell due >> on >> 17.1.2010 and in Group C and D on 14.3.2010. Thus, the Department of >> Disability Affairs, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Government >> of >> India, had not complied with the mandate of Section 32 of the said Act >> nor >> did they respond to the Chief Commissioner's letter dated 11.7.2012 >> >> >> >> >> >> 3. This Court vide letter No.9-10/CCD/2008/R3920 dated 11th >> July, >> 2012 followed by letter dated 29.08.2012 had suggested to the Ministry of >> Social Justice & Empowerment as follows :- >> >> (I) It would be expedient to set up Committees well before the >> expiry of three years from the date of issuance of last notifications for >> identification of posts with a mandate, inter alia to complete the task >> in >> defined time frame. >> >> >> >> >> >> (ii) Compliance with all the provisions of the Act including >> the >> provision contained in Section 32 thereof must be ensured with utmost >> seriousness. >> >> >> >> . >> >> >> >> >> >> (iii) Since the issuance of notification of revised/updated >> list of identified posts was long over due, Ministry of Social Justice & >> Empowerment, Govt. of India should notify the same within one month. >> >> >> >> >> >> 4. The Department of Disability Affairs, Ministry of Social >> Justice & Empowerment vide letter No.16-15/2010-DDIII dated 11.9.2012 >> submitted that the report of the Expert Committee constituted to >> identify/review the posts to be reserved in Group 'A', 'B', 'C' & 'D' >> posts >> for persons with disabilities was received in January, 2012. While >> examining the said report, it was felt necessary to seek certain inputs >> from >> Member-Secretary of the Committee and a few National Institutes. Their >> comments have since been received last week. Though the Department >> assured >> that it would endeavour to finalize the matter at the earliest, no >> definitive time frame within which the notification of revised/updated >> list >> of identified posts would be issued in compliance with the mandate of >> Section 32 of the Act was given. >> >> >> >> 5. Department of Disability Affairs, Ministry of Social >> Justice >> & >> Empowerment, Government of India vide Notice of Complaint to Show Cause >> & >> Hearing dated 17.9.2012 was directed to explain as to why it should not >> issue notification containing revised/updated list of identified posts >> in >> compliance with Section 32 of the said Act latest by 15.10.2012. Else, >> the >> respondent/his/her representative was directed to appear on 1.11.2012 at >> 3.00 p.m. to present the case. The hearing was, however, adjourned to >> 20.11.2012 at 11.00 A.M. on the request of the Department of Disability >> Affairs. >> >> >> >> >> >> 6. The representative of the respondent submitted that the >> matter relating to the revised list of identified posts alongwith draft >> Notification has been submitted to the Hon'ble Minister for her approval. >> It would be notified immediately after it is approved by the Hon'ble >> Minister and is translated into Hindi. He, however, did not specify any >> time frame within which the revised list of identified posts would be >> notified. >> >> >> >> 7. On a meticulous examination of the submissions of the >> respondent contained in D.O. letter dated 11th September, 2012 together >> with the submissions made in the course of hearing, this Court observes >> as >> follows:- >> >> >> >> (i) That Section 32 of the Persons with >> Disabilities Act casts an obligation on the appropriate Government, the >> Respondent Department in the instant case, to review and notify >> lists/revised lists of identified posts at periodical intervals not >> exceeding three years keeping in mind the developments which have >> happened >> in the filed of science and technology. >> >> >> >> (ii) That there has been a distinct >> non-compliance >> with the provisions of Section 32 by the respondent Department on account >> of >> disproportionate delay in reviewing and notifying a revised and up-dated >> list of identified posts. Incidentally, the list of identified posts was >> last notified by the respondent Department in the year 2007 which means >> that >> the revised and up-dated list should have been notified in the year 2010. >> >> >> >> (iii) That the delay in reviewing and notifying >> the >> list of identified posts is likely to prejudicially affect the legitimate >> entitlements and benefits conferred on persons with disabilities by >> Section >> 33 of the Persons with Disabilities Act since only those posts can be >> reserved which have been identified. >> >> >> >> (iv) That this Court further observes that there >> has >> been a recurring non-compliance of Section 32 by the respondent >> Department >> evidenced by the fact that post the enactment of Persons with >> Disabilities >> Act, the first revised and up-dated list of identified posts which should >> have been notified in the year 2004 was notified in the year 2007. It >> goes >> without saying that the first list of identified posts was notified by >> the >> respondent Department post enactment of the PWD Act in the year 2001. >> >> >> >> (v) That a perusal of the Notice of Complaint >> to >> Show Cause and Hearing dated 17.9.2012 would reveal how the respondent >> Department kept on ignoring the advice of this Court communicated to it >> from time to time. >> >> >> >> 8. In view of the foregoing, this Court is pleased to direct >> respondent to notify the revised/up-dated list of identified posts within >> 30 >> days from the date of receipt of this order and also to ensure that the >> provisions of Section 32 of the Persons with Disabilities Act are >> complied >> with in letter and spirit. Action taken may be intimated to this Court. >> >> >> >> 9. A copy of this Order may be posted on the Website of >> this >> Court as soon as may be. >> >> >> >> Sd/ >> >> >> (P.K. Pincha) >> >> Chief Commissioner >> >> for Persons with Disabilities >> >> >> >> >> ****** Regarding comprehensive common exam writing guidelines ******* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Case No.3929/2007 >> Dated: 23.11.2012 >> >> >> >> In the matter of: >> >> >> >> Shri Gopal Sisodia >> >> General Secretary >> >> Indian Association of the Blind >> >> 154/C, Delhi Administration Flats, >> >> Sindhoran Kalan, Delhi-110052. >> ... Complainant >> >> >> >> Versus >> >> >> >> State Bank of India, Mumbai >> .. Respondent No.1 >> >> >> >> Banking Division, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi. >> Respondent No.2 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Department of Disability Affairs, >> >> Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment >> >> Through : Secretary, >> >> Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. >> ... Respondent No.3 >> >> >> >> Case No. 65/1041/12-13 >> >> >> >> In the matter of: >> >> >> >> Score Foundation >> >> Through Shri George Abraham, CEO, >> >> 17/107, LGF, Vikram Vihar, >> >> Lajpat Nagar-4, >> >> New Delhi-110024. >> ... Complainant >> >> >> >> Versus >> >> >> >> Department of Disability Affairs, >> >> Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment >> >> Through : Secretary, >> >> Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. >> ... Respondent >> >> >> >> Date of Hearing : 20.11.2012 >> >> >> >> Present:- >> >> >> >> 1. Mr. George Abraham with Neha Saigal on behalf of Complainant](In >> Case >> No.65/1041/12-13) >> >> 2. None appeared on behalf of Complainant (In Case No.3929/07) >> >> 3. Shri K.V.S. Rao, Director on behalf of Respondent >> >> >> >> >> >> O R D E R >> >> >> >> >> >> Shri Gopal Sisodia, General Secretary, Indian Association >> of >> the Blind, the Complainant filed a complaint dated 13.5.2007 (Case >> No. 3929/2007) under the Persons with Disabilities >> >> >> >> >> >> (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation )Act, >> 1995, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', regarding issuance of >> comprehensive Policy for conduct of written examinations for persons with >> disabilities. >> >> >> >> 2. After two hearings in the case, it was decided to implead >> Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment and the following directions >> were >> issued:- >> >> (a) The complainant to submit a draft of the >> guidelines/provisions that need to be included for the scribe to MSJE by >> 8th >> November, 2007. >> >> (b) Ministry of Finance, in consultation with >> Reserve Bank of India, Indian Bank Association and the other stake >> holders >> to submit their views to MSJE by 8th November, 2007. >> >> (c) MSJE with their input, may circulate the >> draft >> guidelines/criteria for the scribe to respondent 1 & 2 and other >> stakeholders and invite their comments and thereafter finalise the >> guidelines for scribes, preferably within 3 months. >> >> >> >> 3. During the third hearing on 30.11.2007, the Counsel for the >> Complainant submitted that any policy regarding facilities to be given to >> visually impaired and other persons with disabilities for writing the >> issues >> should not be finalized without consulting the stakeholders, particularly >> the beneficiaries of the policy. The representative of the Ministry of >> Finance submitted that RBI and State Bank of India had submitted their >> comments which had been forwarded to the Ministry of Social Justice & >> Empowerment. Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment informed that a >> number >> of suggestions from individuals/organizations had been received which >> needed >> to be consolidated and considered. As a considerable period of time had >> already elapsed, MSJ&E was advised to forward copies of all the >> suggestions >> within a week for consideration. A meeting was thereafter convened under >> the >> Chairmanship of Chief Commissioner on 19.2.2008 to hear the stakeholders >> and >> finalize the recommendations for a policy. After detailed deliberations >> with >> the stakeholders, the recommendations were forwarded to Ministry of >> Social >> Justice & Empowerment vide letter No. 1-2(Scribe)/ CCD/2007 dated >> 17.3.2008. >> After a number of correspondence, Chief Commissioner for Persons with >> Disabilities vide letter dated 26.9.2011 advised MSJ&E to issue the >> guidelines within a month of receipt of that letter. >> >> >> >> 4. In the meantime another complaint dated 6.6.2012 (Case >> No.65/1041/12-13) was received from Score Foundation, which was also >> forwarded to the Department of Disability Affairs vide letter dated >> 31.07.2012 with the request to issue the guidelines within one month from >> the date of the said letter incorporating the suggestions contained in >> the >> letter of Score Foundation dated 6.6.2012. >> >> >> >> 5. Department of Disability Affairs vide their letter dated >> 13.09.2012 submitted that they had decided to organize workshops/seminars >> through its National Institutes to gather views of persons with >> disabilities >> for making provision of a scribe before finalizing a uniform policy for >> persons with disabilities in various examinations. It was further stated >> that the consultations were yet to commence. However, the matter was >> under >> active consideration as views of certain National Associations in this >> field >> had been received and were being deliberated upon. It was also stated >> that >> all efforts to finalize the policy were being made. >> >> >> >> 6. This Court vide letter dated 04.09.2012 requested >> Department >> of Disability Affairs to issue the guidelines on or before 20.09.2012, >> failing which, it was stated, this Court may be constrained to issue >> Show >> Cause Notice. Accordingly, as the guidelines were not issued, a notice >> of >> complaint to show cause and hearing was issued on 21.9.2012 with the >> advice >> to issue the guidelines by 20.10.2012; else to appear before this Court >> on >> 2.11.2012. The matter was re-scheduled for hearing on 20.11.2012 on the >> request of Department of Disability Affairs. >> >> >> >> 7. During the hearing on 20.11.2012, the representative of >> Score >> Foundation in case No.65/1041/12-13 reiterating his submissions envisaged >> in >> his complaint dated 23.4.2012, stressed the need for issuance of uniform >> and comprehensive guidelines for persons with blindness and persons with >> low vision as they continue to be routinely subjected to untold hardship >> and >> disadvantage for want of such uniform and comprehensive guidelines. He >> further submitted that the document which has been put together by Score >> Foundation and others could be circulated to all concerned as guidelines >> so >> that these guidelines can be used as a reference by various stake >> holders >> for developing their own norms with regard to conduct of examinations as >> stated above in respect of candidates with disabilities. The complainant >> further stated that several of the bodies conducting examinations are >> unaware of ways in which candidates with blindness and/or with low vision >> can be included in the examination process. He further added that >> several >> examination conducting Authorities under-estimate the capabilities of >> blind >> and low vision persons to participate in the examination process. >> >> >> >> 8. The representative of Department of Disability Affairs, >> Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Government of India submitted >> that >> the guidelines forwarded by Chief Commissioner for persons with >> disabilities >> were being considered by the Ministry. He added that before taking a >> final >> view in the matter, the Ministry had convened a meeting with the >> recruitment authorities/agencies like Staff Selection Commission, Union >> Public Service Commission, CBSE and sensitized them about the proposed >> guidelines. These authorities were requested to send the detailed >> comments >> on each of the points made by the Chief Commissioner for persons with >> disabilities so that their implementation is ensured. While the comments >> of >> these authorities/agencies were received, the subsequent meeting to be >> held >> with them to finalize the matter could not be held. It was also decided >> by >> the Ministry to request the National Institutes working under the >> Ministry >> to organize consultations to discuss the guidelines framed by Chief >> Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities. Even this consultation could >> not be held so far. Recently, on receipt of a reference from Score >> Foundation, the matter was again examined at the highest level and it was >> decided to take action on the guidelines framed by Chief Commissioner for >> Persons with Disabilities for reaching its logical conclusion. He >> further >> stated that a meeting would be convened in the middle of December this >> year >> with the relevant recruitment and academic bodies. After consulting >> these >> bodies, uniform and comprehensive guidelines would be issued to all >> concerned for compliance. >> >> >> >> 9. In the light of foregoing, this Court is pleased to observe >> as >> follows:- >> >> >> >> (i) That the question of issuance of uniform >> and >> comprehensive guidelines in the matter of conduct of all kinds of >> examinations (both recruitment related and academics related) involving >> persons with disabilities has been under consideration by the Respondent >> Department for quite a few years now as can be seen from the relevant >> Show >> Cause Notice/Notice of hearing dated 21.9.2012. >> >> >> >> (ii) That it goes without saying that in the >> absence of such uniform and comprehensive guidelines, persons with >> disabilities including the persons with blindness and low vision >> continued >> to be routinely subjected to prolonged and pervasive hardship and >> disadvantage with the result that more often than not, many candidates >> with >> disabilities have to run from pillar to post getting to fix various >> problems >> relating to taking off examinations by them such as issues around >> amanuenses, use of low vision aids, use of computers, extra time etc. >> etc. >> >> >> >> (iii) That this Court notes with utter dismay and shock that >> this >> matter did not move forward with the Ministry since 2008 and 2009 and it >> continues to hang fire compounding the hardship, disadvantage and >> irreparable loss faced by persons with disabilities. >> >> >> >> (iv) That while the instant complaints relate specifically to >> persons with blindness and low vision, this Court is also equally >> concerned >> about the hardships and disadvantage faced by persons belonging to other >> categories of disabilities as well in the matter of taking examinations. >> >> >> >> (v) That the guidelines put together by the Complainant Score >> Foundation and other concerned persons with low vision only, and they do >> not >> take on board the concerns of persons belonging to other categories of >> disabilities. >> >> >> >> (vi) That the guidelines put together by the office of the Chief >> Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities after elaborate consultations >> with primary and other stake holders including persons with blindness and >> persons with low vision etc. >> >> >> >> (vii) That this Court acknowledges that developing guidelines >> and >> norms in the matter of this ilk has to be an evolving process >> characterized >> by reasonable flexibility so as to cater to the exigencies of a given >> situation and also to take on board the advancement which takes place in >> the >> field of science and technology with the efflux of time. >> >> >> >> (viii) That in view of the foregoing, the issuance of uniform and >> comprehensive guidelines as stated above brooks no delay. >> >> >> >> 10. This Court, therefore, directs the Respondent Department to >> complete all necessary processes & procedures, finalize and circulate for >> compliance uniform and comprehensive guidelines to all concerned put >> together by this Court with or without modifications as may be necessary >> for >> conduct of all kinds of examinations within two months from today. >> >> >> >> 11. Copy of this Order may be posted on the Website of this >> Court >> as soon as may be. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ( P.K. Pincha ) >> >> Chief Commissioner >> >> for Persons with Disabilities >> >> >> >> >> >> Register at the dedicated AccessIndia list for discussing accessibility >> of >> mobile phones / Tabs on: >> http://mail.accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/mobile.accessindia_accessindia.org.in >> >> >> Search for old postings at: >> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ >> >> 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 >> >> > > > -- > Avinash Shahi > MPhil Research Scholar > Centre for the Study of Law and Governance > Jawaharlal Nehru University > New Delhi India > > Register at the dedicated AccessIndia list for discussing accessibility of > mobile phones / Tabs on: > http://mail.accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/mobile.accessindia_accessindia.org.in > > > Search for old postings at: > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > > 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 > > Register at the dedicated AccessIndia list for discussing accessibility of mobile phones / Tabs on: http://mail.accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/mobile.accessindia_accessindia.org.in Search for old postings at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ 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
