Re: [AI] Appoint visually handicapped person who cleared IAS exam'
Indeed a milestone judgment delivered by honourable judges. It will keep our faith alive in Indian judiciary system and encourage many more VIs to endeavour and achieve such heights. Salute to the judiciary and Congratulations to Mr. Gupta. I would be thankful if somebody can provide the contact details of Mr. Gupta. On 7/8/10, pradeep banakar pradeepsocialw...@gmail.com wrote: Appoint visually handicapped person who cleared IAS exam' J. Venkatesan http://thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article505093.ece New Delhi, July 8, 2010 The Supreme Court on Wednesday came to the rescue of a visually handicapped person who cleared the 2006 Civil Services examination and the interview but was denied employment. It directed the Government of India to appoint him under the provisions of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection, Rights and Full Participation) Act. A Bench consisting of Justices Altamas Kabir and Cyriac Joseph rejected the Centre's contention that since posts for the visually handicapped had not been identified, no appointment could be provided to respondent Ravi Prakash Gupta. Mr. Gupta, who is 100 per cent blind, himself argued the case. Writing the judgment, Justice Kabir said the fact that the respondent was eligible for appointment in the civil services after having been declared successful and placed at Serial No. 5 in the Disabled Category of the visually impaired candidates could not be denied. The Centre's contention on implementation of the provisions of Section 33 of the Disabilities Act only after identification of posts suitable for such appointment “runs counter to the legislative intent with which the Act was enacted.” The Bench said that “to accept such a submission would amount to accepting a situation where the provisions of Section 33 of the Act could be kept deferred indefinitely by bureaucratic inaction. As has been pointed out by the High Court, neither Section 32 nor Section 33 makes any distinction with regard to Grade ‘A', ‘B', ‘C' and ‘D' posts. They only speak of identification and reservation of posts for people with disabilities, though the proviso to Section 33 does empower the appropriate government to exempt any establishment from the provision of the said Section, having regard to the type of work carried on in any department or establishment.” The judges said, “The Legislature never intended the provisions of Section 32 of the Act to be used as a tool to deny the benefits of Section 33 to these categories of disabled persons indicated therein.” In the instant case, the Delhi High Court set aside the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting the relief sought for by Mr. Gupta. It directed the Centre to grant him appointment as there was sufficient number of vacancies in which he could be appointed. The present appeal by the Centre is directed against this order. The Supreme Court Bench, while declining to interfere with the High Court order, granted the Centre eight weeks for complying with the directions. Disapproving of the Centre's stand, the Bench imposed Rs.20,000 costs on it to be paid in four weeks. Bench asks government to give him job under the Disabilities Act Rejects Centre's contention that Act could be implemented only after identification of posts Voice your thoughts in the blog to discuss the Rights of persons with disability bill at: http://www.accessindia.org.in/harish/blog.htm 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 -- Thanks and regards Himanshu Sahu Reach: 09051055000 Voice your thoughts in the blog to discuss the Rights of persons with disability bill at: http://www.accessindia.org.in/harish/blog.htm 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
Re: [AI] Appoint visually handicapped person who cleared IAS exam'
great news. hope some good will come from order amit -Original Message- From: accessindia-boun...@accessindia.org.in [mailto:accessindia-boun...@accessindia.org.in] On Behalf Of pradeep banakar Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 10:07 AM To: accessindia Subject: [AI] Appoint visually handicapped person who cleared IAS exam' Appoint visually handicapped person who cleared IAS exam' J. Venkatesan http://thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article505093.ece New Delhi, July 8, 2010 The Supreme Court on Wednesday came to the rescue of a visually handicapped person who cleared the 2006 Civil Services examination and the interview but was denied employment. It directed the Government of India to appoint him under the provisions of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection, Rights and Full Participation) Act. A Bench consisting of Justices Altamas Kabir and Cyriac Joseph rejected the Centre's contention that since posts for the visually handicapped had not been identified, no appointment could be provided to respondent Ravi Prakash Gupta. Mr. Gupta, who is 100 per cent blind, himself argued the case. Writing the judgment, Justice Kabir said the fact that the respondent was eligible for appointment in the civil services after having been declared successful and placed at Serial No. 5 in the Disabled Category of the visually impaired candidates could not be denied. The Centre's contention on implementation of the provisions of Section 33 of the Disabilities Act only after identification of posts suitable for such appointment runs counter to the legislative intent with which the Act was enacted. The Bench said that to accept such a submission would amount to accepting a situation where the provisions of Section 33 of the Act could be kept deferred indefinitely by bureaucratic inaction. As has been pointed out by the High Court, neither Section 32 nor Section 33 makes any distinction with regard to Grade 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D' posts. They only speak of identification and reservation of posts for people with disabilities, though the proviso to Section 33 does empower the appropriate government to exempt any establishment from the provision of the said Section, having regard to the type of work carried on in any department or establishment. The judges said, The Legislature never intended the provisions of Section 32 of the Act to be used as a tool to deny the benefits of Section 33 to these categories of disabled persons indicated therein. In the instant case, the Delhi High Court set aside the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting the relief sought for by Mr. Gupta. It directed the Centre to grant him appointment as there was sufficient number of vacancies in which he could be appointed. The present appeal by the Centre is directed against this order. The Supreme Court Bench, while declining to interfere with the High Court order, granted the Centre eight weeks for complying with the directions. Disapproving of the Centre's stand, the Bench imposed Rs.20,000 costs on it to be paid in four weeks. Bench asks government to give him job under the Disabilities Act Rejects Centre's contention that Act could be implemented only after identification of posts Voice your thoughts in the blog to discuss the Rights of persons with disability bill at: http://www.accessindia.org.in/harish/blog.htm 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 Voice your thoughts in the blog to discuss the Rights of persons with disability bill at: http://www.accessindia.org.in/harish/blog.htm 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
Re: [AI] Appoint visually handicapped person who cleared IAS exam'
) blindness or low vision; (ii) hearing impairment; (iii) locomotor disability or cerebral palsy, in theposts identifiedfor each disability: Provided, that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on inany 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. 17. While it cannot be denied that unless posts are identified for the purposes of Section 33 of the aforesaid Act, no appointments from the reserved categories contained therein can be made, and that 23 to such extent the provisions of Section 33 are dependent on Section 32 of the Act, as submitted by the learned ASG, but the extent of such dependence would be for the purpose of making appointments and not for the purpose of making reservation. In other words, reservation under Section 33 of the Act is not dependent on identification, as urged on behalf of the Union of India, though a duty has been cast uponthe appropriate Governmentto make appointments in the number of posts reserved for the three categories mentioned in Section 33 of the Actinrespect of personssuffering from the disabilities spelt out therein. Infact, a situation has also been noticed where on account of non-availability of candidates some of the reserved posts could remain vacant in a given year. For meeting such eventualities, provision was made to carry forward such vacancies for two years after which they would lapse. Since in the instant case such a situation did not arise and posts were not 24 reserved under Section 33 of theDisabilities Act, 1995, the question of carrying forward of vacancies or lapse thereof, does not arise. 18. The various decisions cited by A. Sumathi, learnedAdvocateforthefirst intervenor, Shri A.V. Prema Nath, are not of assistance in the facts of this case, which depends on its own facts and interpretationofSections 32and 33 ofthe Disabilities Act, 1995. 19. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with thejudgment oftheHighCourt impugnedin the Special LeavePetition which is,accordingly, dismissedwithcosts. Allinterim ordersare vacated. The petitioners are given eight weeks' time from today to give effect to the directions of the High Court. 25 20. The petitioners shall pay the cost of these proceedings to the respondent No.1assessed at Rs.20,000/-, within four weeks from date. J. (ALTAMAS KABIR) J. (CYRIAC JOSEPH) New Delhi Dated:7th July, 2010. On 7/8/10, jayinfotech jayinfot...@yahoo.com wrote: great news. hope some good will come from order amit -Original Message- From: accessindia-boun...@accessindia.org.in [mailto:accessindia-boun...@accessindia.org.in] On Behalf Of pradeep banakar Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 10:07 AM To: accessindia Subject: [AI] Appoint visually handicapped person who cleared IAS exam' Appoint visually handicapped person who cleared IAS exam' J. Venkatesan http://thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article505093.ece New Delhi, July 8, 2010 The Supreme Court on Wednesday came to the rescue of a visually handicapped person who cleared the 2006 Civil Services examination and the interview but was denied employment. It directed the Government of India to appoint him under the provisions of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection, Rights and Full Participation) Act. A Bench consisting of Justices Altamas Kabir and Cyriac Joseph rejected the Centre's contention that since posts for the visually handicapped had not been identified, no appointment could be provided to respondent Ravi Prakash Gupta. Mr. Gupta, who is 100 per cent blind, himself argued the case. Writing the judgment, Justice Kabir said the fact that the respondent was eligible for appointment in the civil services after having been declared successful and placed at Serial No. 5 in the Disabled Category of the visually impaired candidates could not be denied. The Centre's contention on implementation of the provisions of Section 33 of the Disabilities Act only after identification of posts suitable
Re: [AI] Appoint visually handicapped person who cleared IAS exam'
Pardon my ignorance... How easy/difficult for an individual to argue his own cse? Subramani -Original Message- From: accessindia-boun...@accessindia.org.in [mailto:accessindia-boun...@accessindia.org.in] On Behalf Of pradeep banakar Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 10:07 AM To: accessindia Subject: [AI] Appoint visually handicapped person who cleared IAS exam' Appoint visually handicapped person who cleared IAS exam' J. Venkatesan http://thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article505093.ece New Delhi, July 8, 2010 The Supreme Court on Wednesday came to the rescue of a visually handicapped person who cleared the 2006 Civil Services examination and the interview but was denied employment. It directed the Government of India to appoint him under the provisions of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection, Rights and Full Participation) Act. A Bench consisting of Justices Altamas Kabir and Cyriac Joseph rejected the Centre's contention that since posts for the visually handicapped had not been identified, no appointment could be provided to respondent Ravi Prakash Gupta. Mr. Gupta, who is 100 per cent blind, himself argued the case. Writing the judgment, Justice Kabir said the fact that the respondent was eligible for appointment in the civil services after having been declared successful and placed at Serial No. 5 in the Disabled Category of the visually impaired candidates could not be denied. The Centre's contention on implementation of the provisions of Section 33 of the Disabilities Act only after identification of posts suitable for such appointment runs counter to the legislative intent with which the Act was enacted. The Bench said that to accept such a submission would amount to accepting a situation where the provisions of Section 33 of the Act could be kept deferred indefinitely by bureaucratic inaction. As has been pointed out by the High Court, neither Section 32 nor Section 33 makes any distinction with regard to Grade 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D' posts. They only speak of identification and reservation of posts for people with disabilities, though the proviso to Section 33 does empower the appropriate government to exempt any establishment from the provision of the said Section, having regard to the type of work carried on in any department or establishment. The judges said, The Legislature never intended the provisions of Section 32 of the Act to be used as a tool to deny the benefits of Section 33 to these categories of disabled persons indicated therein. In the instant case, the Delhi High Court set aside the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting the relief sought for by Mr. Gupta. It directed the Centre to grant him appointment as there was sufficient number of vacancies in which he could be appointed. The present appeal by the Centre is directed against this order. The Supreme Court Bench, while declining to interfere with the High Court order, granted the Centre eight weeks for complying with the directions. Disapproving of the Centre's stand, the Bench imposed Rs.20,000 costs on it to be paid in four weeks. Bench asks government to give him job under the Disabilities Act Rejects Centre's contention that Act could be implemented only after identification of posts Voice your thoughts in the blog to discuss the Rights of persons with disability bill at: http://www.accessindia.org.in/harish/blog.htm 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.i n Voice your thoughts in the blog to discuss the Rights of persons with disability bill at: http://www.accessindia.org.in/harish/blog.htm 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
Re: [AI] Appoint visually handicapped person who cleared IAS exam'
As far as I know, According to Advocate act 1961 to argue his or her case, a person should at least have a LL.B. digree. Sorry if its wrong. On 7/8/10, Subramani L lsubram...@deccanherald.co.in wrote: Pardon my ignorance... How easy/difficult for an individual to argue his own cse? Subramani -Original Message- From: accessindia-boun...@accessindia.org.in [mailto:accessindia-boun...@accessindia.org.in] On Behalf Of pradeep banakar Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 10:07 AM To: accessindia Subject: [AI] Appoint visually handicapped person who cleared IAS exam' Appoint visually handicapped person who cleared IAS exam' J. Venkatesan http://thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article505093.ece New Delhi, July 8, 2010 The Supreme Court on Wednesday came to the rescue of a visually handicapped person who cleared the 2006 Civil Services examination and the interview but was denied employment. It directed the Government of India to appoint him under the provisions of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection, Rights and Full Participation) Act. A Bench consisting of Justices Altamas Kabir and Cyriac Joseph rejected the Centre's contention that since posts for the visually handicapped had not been identified, no appointment could be provided to respondent Ravi Prakash Gupta. Mr. Gupta, who is 100 per cent blind, himself argued the case. Writing the judgment, Justice Kabir said the fact that the respondent was eligible for appointment in the civil services after having been declared successful and placed at Serial No. 5 in the Disabled Category of the visually impaired candidates could not be denied. The Centre's contention on implementation of the provisions of Section 33 of the Disabilities Act only after identification of posts suitable for such appointment runs counter to the legislative intent with which the Act was enacted. The Bench said that to accept such a submission would amount to accepting a situation where the provisions of Section 33 of the Act could be kept deferred indefinitely by bureaucratic inaction. As has been pointed out by the High Court, neither Section 32 nor Section 33 makes any distinction with regard to Grade 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D' posts. They only speak of identification and reservation of posts for people with disabilities, though the proviso to Section 33 does empower the appropriate government to exempt any establishment from the provision of the said Section, having regard to the type of work carried on in any department or establishment. The judges said, The Legislature never intended the provisions of Section 32 of the Act to be used as a tool to deny the benefits of Section 33 to these categories of disabled persons indicated therein. In the instant case, the Delhi High Court set aside the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting the relief sought for by Mr. Gupta. It directed the Centre to grant him appointment as there was sufficient number of vacancies in which he could be appointed. The present appeal by the Centre is directed against this order. The Supreme Court Bench, while declining to interfere with the High Court order, granted the Centre eight weeks for complying with the directions. Disapproving of the Centre's stand, the Bench imposed Rs.20,000 costs on it to be paid in four weeks. Bench asks government to give him job under the Disabilities Act Rejects Centre's contention that Act could be implemented only after identification of posts Voice your thoughts in the blog to discuss the Rights of persons with disability bill at: http://www.accessindia.org.in/harish/blog.htm 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.i n Voice your thoughts in the blog to discuss the Rights of persons with disability bill at: http://www.accessindia.org.in/harish/blog.htm 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 Voice your thoughts in the blog to discuss the Rights of persons with disability bill at: http://www.accessindia.org.in/harish/blog.htm 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
[AI] ‘Appoint visually handicapped person who cleared IAS exam'
Today's Paper » NATIONAL New Delhi, July 8, 2010 ‘Appoint visually handicapped person who cleared IAS exam' J. Venkatesan Share · print · T+ The Supreme Court on Wednesday came to the rescue of a visually handicapped person who cleared the 2006 Civil Services examination and the interview but was denied employment. It directed the Government of India to appoint him under the provisions of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection, Rights and Full Participation) Act. A Bench consisting of Justices Altamas Kabir and Cyriac Joseph rejected the Centre's contention that since posts for the visually handicapped had not been identified, no appointment could be provided to respondent Ravi Prakash Gupta. Mr. Gupta, who is 100 per cent blind, himself argued the case. Writing the judgment, Justice Kabir said the fact that the respondent was eligible for appointment in the civil services after having been declared successful and placed at Serial No. 5 in the Disabled Category of the visually impaired candidates could not be denied. The Centre's contention on implementation of the provisions of Section 33 of the Disabilities Act only after identification of posts suitable for such appointment “runs counter to the legislative intent with which the Act was enacted.” The Bench said that “to accept such a submission would amount to accepting a situation where the provisions of Section 33 of the Act could be kept deferred indefinitely by bureaucratic inaction. As has been pointed out by the High Court, neither Section 32 nor Section 33 makes any distinction with regard to Grade ‘A', ‘B', ‘C' and ‘D' posts. They only speak of identification and reservation of posts for people with disabilities, though the proviso to Section 33 does empower the appropriate government to exempt any establishment from the provision of the said Section, having regard to the type of work carried on in any department or establishment.” The judges said, “The Legislature never intended the provisions of Section 32 of the Act to be used as a tool to deny the benefits of Section 33 to these categories of disabled persons indicated therein.” In the instant case, the Delhi High Court set aside the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting the relief sought for by Mr. Gupta. It directed the Centre to grant him appointment as there was sufficient number of vacancies in which he could be appointed. The present appeal by the Centre is directed against this order. The Supreme Court Bench, while declining to interfere with the High Court order, granted the Centre eight weeks for complying with the directions. Disapproving of the Centre's stand, the Bench imposed Rs.20,000 costs on it to be paid in four weeks. •Bench asks government to give him job under the Disabilities Act •Rejects Centre's contention that Act could be implemented only after identification of posts Email the Editor Today's paper archive (From -- True friendship consists not innmultitude of friends, but in their worth and value Voice your thoughts in the blog to discuss the Rights of persons with disability bill at: http://www.accessindia.org.in/harish/blog.htm 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
Re: [AI] Appoint visually handicapped person who cleared IAS exam'
No, for arguing one's own case you need not to have a LL.B. degree. You need to have the abovementioned degree if you wish to argue some one else's case in the court of law only. (not in other fora etc such as the Consumer Redressal Forum) On 7/8/10, akhilesh akhil.akhi...@gmail.com wrote: As far as I know, According to Advocate act 1961 to argue his or her case, a person should at least have a LL.B. digree. Sorry if its wrong. On 7/8/10, Subramani L lsubram...@deccanherald.co.in wrote: Pardon my ignorance... How easy/difficult for an individual to argue his own cse? Subramani -Original Message- From: accessindia-boun...@accessindia.org.in [mailto:accessindia-boun...@accessindia.org.in] On Behalf Of pradeep banakar Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 10:07 AM To: accessindia Subject: [AI] Appoint visually handicapped person who cleared IAS exam' Appoint visually handicapped person who cleared IAS exam' J. Venkatesan http://thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article505093.ece New Delhi, July 8, 2010 The Supreme Court on Wednesday came to the rescue of a visually handicapped person who cleared the 2006 Civil Services examination and the interview but was denied employment. It directed the Government of India to appoint him under the provisions of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection, Rights and Full Participation) Act. A Bench consisting of Justices Altamas Kabir and Cyriac Joseph rejected the Centre's contention that since posts for the visually handicapped had not been identified, no appointment could be provided to respondent Ravi Prakash Gupta. Mr. Gupta, who is 100 per cent blind, himself argued the case. Writing the judgment, Justice Kabir said the fact that the respondent was eligible for appointment in the civil services after having been declared successful and placed at Serial No. 5 in the Disabled Category of the visually impaired candidates could not be denied. The Centre's contention on implementation of the provisions of Section 33 of the Disabilities Act only after identification of posts suitable for such appointment runs counter to the legislative intent with which the Act was enacted. The Bench said that to accept such a submission would amount to accepting a situation where the provisions of Section 33 of the Act could be kept deferred indefinitely by bureaucratic inaction. As has been pointed out by the High Court, neither Section 32 nor Section 33 makes any distinction with regard to Grade 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D' posts. They only speak of identification and reservation of posts for people with disabilities, though the proviso to Section 33 does empower the appropriate government to exempt any establishment from the provision of the said Section, having regard to the type of work carried on in any department or establishment. The judges said, The Legislature never intended the provisions of Section 32 of the Act to be used as a tool to deny the benefits of Section 33 to these categories of disabled persons indicated therein. In the instant case, the Delhi High Court set aside the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting the relief sought for by Mr. Gupta. It directed the Centre to grant him appointment as there was sufficient number of vacancies in which he could be appointed. The present appeal by the Centre is directed against this order. The Supreme Court Bench, while declining to interfere with the High Court order, granted the Centre eight weeks for complying with the directions. Disapproving of the Centre's stand, the Bench imposed Rs.20,000 costs on it to be paid in four weeks. Bench asks government to give him job under the Disabilities Act Rejects Centre's contention that Act could be implemented only after identification of posts Voice your thoughts in the blog to discuss the Rights of persons with disability bill at: http://www.accessindia.org.in/harish/blog.htm 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.i n Voice your thoughts in the blog to discuss the Rights of persons with disability bill at: http://www.accessindia.org.in/harish/blog.htm 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 Voice your thoughts in the blog to discuss the Rights of persons with disability bill at: http
Re: [AI] Appoint visually handicapped person who cleared IAS exam'
I am afraid Akhilesh it is not correct. In fact, anybody can argue her his case, LL.B. degree along with registration at bar is a must for taking up a client's case. Regards If you believe that there is a God, a God that made your body, and yet you think that you can do anything with that body that's dirty, then the fault lies with the manufacturer. --Lenny Bruce (Rajesh Asudani) Assistant General Manager, Reserve Bank of India Nagpur 09420397185 O: 0712 2806676 Res: 0712 2591349 -Original Message- From: accessindia-boun...@accessindia.org.in [mailto:accessindia-boun...@accessindia.org.in] On Behalf Of akhilesh Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 2:34 PM To: accessindia@accessindia.org.in Subject: Re: [AI] Appoint visually handicapped person who cleared IAS exam' As far as I know, According to Advocate act 1961 to argue his or her case, a person should at least have a LL.B. digree. Sorry if its wrong. On 7/8/10, Subramani L lsubram...@deccanherald.co.in wrote: Pardon my ignorance... How easy/difficult for an individual to argue his own cse? Subramani -Original Message- From: accessindia-boun...@accessindia.org.in [mailto:accessindia-boun...@accessindia.org.in] On Behalf Of pradeep banakar Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 10:07 AM To: accessindia Subject: [AI] Appoint visually handicapped person who cleared IAS exam' Appoint visually handicapped person who cleared IAS exam' J. Venkatesan http://thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article505093.ece New Delhi, July 8, 2010 The Supreme Court on Wednesday came to the rescue of a visually handicapped person who cleared the 2006 Civil Services examination and the interview but was denied employment. It directed the Government of India to appoint him under the provisions of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection, Rights and Full Participation) Act. A Bench consisting of Justices Altamas Kabir and Cyriac Joseph rejected the Centre's contention that since posts for the visually handicapped had not been identified, no appointment could be provided to respondent Ravi Prakash Gupta. Mr. Gupta, who is 100 per cent blind, himself argued the case. Writing the judgment, Justice Kabir said the fact that the respondent was eligible for appointment in the civil services after having been declared successful and placed at Serial No. 5 in the Disabled Category of the visually impaired candidates could not be denied. The Centre's contention on implementation of the provisions of Section 33 of the Disabilities Act only after identification of posts suitable for such appointment runs counter to the legislative intent with which the Act was enacted. The Bench said that to accept such a submission would amount to accepting a situation where the provisions of Section 33 of the Act could be kept deferred indefinitely by bureaucratic inaction. As has been pointed out by the High Court, neither Section 32 nor Section 33 makes any distinction with regard to Grade 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D' posts. They only speak of identification and reservation of posts for people with disabilities, though the proviso to Section 33 does empower the appropriate government to exempt any establishment from the provision of the said Section, having regard to the type of work carried on in any department or establishment. The judges said, The Legislature never intended the provisions of Section 32 of the Act to be used as a tool to deny the benefits of Section 33 to these categories of disabled persons indicated therein. In the instant case, the Delhi High Court set aside the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting the relief sought for by Mr. Gupta. It directed the Centre to grant him appointment as there was sufficient number of vacancies in which he could be appointed. The present appeal by the Centre is directed against this order. The Supreme Court Bench, while declining to interfere with the High Court order, granted the Centre eight weeks for complying with the directions. Disapproving of the Centre's stand, the Bench imposed Rs.20,000 costs on it to be paid in four weeks. Bench asks government to give him job under the Disabilities Act Rejects Centre's contention that Act could be implemented only after identification of posts Voice your thoughts in the blog to discuss the Rights of persons with disability bill at: http://www.accessindia.org.in/harish/blog.htm 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.i n Voice
Re: [AI] Appoint visually handicapped person who cleared IAS exam'
Hello, Could you send me its URL or judgement through attachments? I will highly be obliged to you for the same. Regards, Rakesh. - Original Message - From: akhilesh akhil.akhi...@gmail.com To: accessindia@accessindia.org.in Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 1:55 PM Subject: Re: [AI] Appoint visually handicapped person who cleared IAS exam' Hello, Pasting the judgment in its entirety. Thankyou, Akhilesh. Here it goes: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.14889 OF 2009 Govt. of India through Secretary Anr. .. Petitioners Vs. Ravi Prakash Gupta Anr... Respondents J U D G M E N T ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1.The Government of India, through the Secretary, Ministryof Personnel PublicGrievances, Department of Personnel and Training and through the Secretary,Ministry of Social Justiceand Empowerment, has filed this Special Leave Petition 2 against the judgment and order dated 25th February, 2009,passed bytheDelhi HighCourt in Writ Petition (Civil) No.5429 of 2008, allowing the Writ Petitionandsetting aside theorder dated7th April, 2008, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench,New Delhi,in O.A. No.1397of 2007, filed by theRespondentNo.1 herein, andallowingthe reliefs prayedfor therein. 2. The Respondent No.1 is a visually handicapped person who suffers from 100% blindness. He appeared in the Civil Services Examination conducted by the Union Public Service Commission in the year 2006. Afterclearingthepreliminary examination,the Respondent No.1 appeared for the main examination in October, 2006 and was declared successful and was,thereafter, calledfor apersonalitytest scheduledfor1st May, 2007. Pursuantto such interview, the names of 474 candidates who were 3 selected were released on 14th May, 2007. In the said list, the name of one other visually impaired candidate also figured. The Respondent No.1 was at serial no.5 of the merit list prepared for visually handicapped candidates,who hadbeen declared successfulin the examination. Accordingto the Respondent No.1, although there were more than 5 vacanciesavailable inthe visually handicapped category, only one post was offered under the said category and he was,therefore, not given appointment despite the vacancies available. 3. Beingaggrieved by themanner in which selections weremade for appointment in the visually handicapped category, the Respondent No.1 filed a Writ Petition, being Writ Petition (Civil) No.5338 of 2007, before the Delhi High Court. The same was subsequently withdrawn since it was the Central Administrative Tribunal onlywhich had jurisdiction to entertain such matters at the first 4 instance. The Respondent No.1,accordingly, withdrew the Writ Petition, with liberty to approach the CentralAdministrative Tribunal. Thereafter, he filed an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which was registered as O.A. No.1397 of 2007, staking his claim for appointment under the reservation of vacanciesfordisabledcategories provided for under Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection, Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, hereinafter referred to as `theDisabilities Act, 1995'.The basic contention of the Respondent No.1 was that since the aforesaid Act came into force in 1996 providing a statutory mandate for reservation of 3% of the posts availablefor persons sufferingfrom differentkinds ofdisabilities enumerated in Section 33of theDisabilitiesAct,1995,such reservation ought to have been in force with effect from the date on which the Act came into force. 5 According to the Respondent No.1, if the vacancies were to beconsidered fromtheyear1996,then instead of one
[AI] Appoint visually handicapped person who cleared IAS exam'
‘Appoint visually handicapped person who cleared IAS exam' J. Venkatesan http://thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article505093.ece New Delhi, July 8, 2010 The Supreme Court on Wednesday came to the rescue of a visually handicapped person who cleared the 2006 Civil Services examination and the interview but was denied employment. It directed the Government of India to appoint him under the provisions of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection, Rights and Full Participation) Act. A Bench consisting of Justices Altamas Kabir and Cyriac Joseph rejected the Centre's contention that since posts for the visually handicapped had not been identified, no appointment could be provided to respondent Ravi Prakash Gupta. Mr. Gupta, who is 100 per cent blind, himself argued the case. Writing the judgment, Justice Kabir said the fact that the respondent was eligible for appointment in the civil services after having been declared successful and placed at Serial No. 5 in the Disabled Category of the visually impaired candidates could not be denied. The Centre's contention on implementation of the provisions of Section 33 of the Disabilities Act only after identification of posts suitable for such appointment “runs counter to the legislative intent with which the Act was enacted.” The Bench said that “to accept such a submission would amount to accepting a situation where the provisions of Section 33 of the Act could be kept deferred indefinitely by bureaucratic inaction. As has been pointed out by the High Court, neither Section 32 nor Section 33 makes any distinction with regard to Grade ‘A', ‘B', ‘C' and ‘D' posts. They only speak of identification and reservation of posts for people with disabilities, though the proviso to Section 33 does empower the appropriate government to exempt any establishment from the provision of the said Section, having regard to the type of work carried on in any department or establishment.” The judges said, “The Legislature never intended the provisions of Section 32 of the Act to be used as a tool to deny the benefits of Section 33 to these categories of disabled persons indicated therein.” In the instant case, the Delhi High Court set aside the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting the relief sought for by Mr. Gupta. It directed the Centre to grant him appointment as there was sufficient number of vacancies in which he could be appointed. The present appeal by the Centre is directed against this order. The Supreme Court Bench, while declining to interfere with the High Court order, granted the Centre eight weeks for complying with the directions. Disapproving of the Centre's stand, the Bench imposed Rs.20,000 costs on it to be paid in four weeks. Bench asks government to give him job under the Disabilities Act Rejects Centre's contention that Act could be implemented only after identification of posts Voice your thoughts in the blog to discuss the Rights of persons with disability bill at: http://www.accessindia.org.in/harish/blog.htm 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
[AI] Appoint visually handicapped person who cleared IAS exam'
Appoint visually handicapped person who cleared IAS exam' J. Venkatesan http://thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article505093.ece New Delhi, July 8, 2010 The Supreme Court on Wednesday came to the rescue of a visually handicapped person who cleared the 2006 Civil Services examination and the interview but was denied employment. It directed the Government of India to appoint him under the provisions of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection, Rights and Full Participation) Act. A Bench consisting of Justices Altamas Kabir and Cyriac Joseph rejected the Centre's contention that since posts for the visually handicapped had not been identified, no appointment could be provided to respondent Ravi Prakash Gupta. Mr. Gupta, who is 100 per cent blind, himself argued the case. Writing the judgment, Justice Kabir said the fact that the respondent was eligible for appointment in the civil services after having been declared successful and placed at Serial No. 5 in the Disabled Category of the visually impaired candidates could not be denied. The Centre's contention on implementation of the provisions of Section 33 of the Disabilities Act only after identification of posts suitable for such appointment “runs counter to the legislative intent with which the Act was enacted.” The Bench said that “to accept such a submission would amount to accepting a situation where the provisions of Section 33 of the Act could be kept deferred indefinitely by bureaucratic inaction. As has been pointed out by the High Court, neither Section 32 nor Section 33 makes any distinction with regard to Grade ‘A', ‘B', ‘C' and ‘D' posts. They only speak of identification and reservation of posts for people with disabilities, though the proviso to Section 33 does empower the appropriate government to exempt any establishment from the provision of the said Section, having regard to the type of work carried on in any department or establishment.” The judges said, “The Legislature never intended the provisions of Section 32 of the Act to be used as a tool to deny the benefits of Section 33 to these categories of disabled persons indicated therein.” In the instant case, the Delhi High Court set aside the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting the relief sought for by Mr. Gupta. It directed the Centre to grant him appointment as there was sufficient number of vacancies in which he could be appointed. The present appeal by the Centre is directed against this order. The Supreme Court Bench, while declining to interfere with the High Court order, granted the Centre eight weeks for complying with the directions. Disapproving of the Centre's stand, the Bench imposed Rs.20,000 costs on it to be paid in four weeks. Bench asks government to give him job under the Disabilities Act Rejects Centre's contention that Act could be implemented only after identification of posts Voice your thoughts in the blog to discuss the Rights of persons with disability bill at: http://www.accessindia.org.in/harish/blog.htm 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
