Re: [AI] CHENNAI: Partial blindness shatters man’s judge dreams
Hey Arjun my contact detail is in the signature. By the way my mobile number is 955765 On 6/8/15, Arjun Malhotra wrote: > Need of hour is a PIL in SC for such arbitrary rules which lacks > judicial use of disgression. > > On 6/8/15, Arjun Malhotra wrote: >> Hi Mohib >> Can I have your contact details Please? >> >> On 6/8/15, Mohib Anwar Rafay wrote: >>> Yes one thing is clear, if supreme court holds that any of such moves >>> which is based on arbitrary decision of the government, is infringing >>> the right of visually impaired person, even high court can not >>> exercise its discretionary administrative power while giving its >>> ascent on such appointments. Cirtain states are open for the >>> appointments of visually impaired candidates as judges in lower >>> judiciary, such as Delhi and Haryana. Presently there are not less >>> than 5 judges who have been appointed in Haryana and Delhi judiciary >>> under visually impaired quota. >>> >>> On 6/8/15, Mohib Anwar Rafay wrote: Actually in the matter of appointment of judges to lower judiciary, the things very much depends upon the high court of concern state itself. As it is the requirement under the constitution that while appointment to such judiciary the consultation from high court is necessary. Mean the high court in this respect is performing the administrative as wel judicial function. If you are aggrieved with the decision of the government for not providing the seat in lower judiciary, you will be before the same high court who didn't give its ascent for such appointment. So the matter is not that much easy. While conducting a hearing in my matter, on the plea of state counsel that such reservation can only be given after proper approval of high court itself, Allahabad high court observed that you (government) didn't come before us for any kind of such consultation. On 6/8/15, avinash shahi wrote: > This is an opportune time all blind lawyers practicing in several High > Courts as well in the Supreme Court should write an open letter to the > CJI and CC it to the PMO of India, And publicise this in the media. > I'm sure things are gonna get better. One could also take on board the > blind judge in one of districts in MP as reported in the news an year > ago. I wish interested candidates don't miss this opportunity. > > > > > On 6/8/15, umesh kasab wrote: >> Supposedly most progressive organ of government falls prey to the >> simplest and straightest dictum-Its easy to preach than practice! >> What >> are the requirements of the job, by the way, that disables the >> candidate from performing the duties in a proper way? Has this part >> got any mentioning in the verdict? >> >> On 6/8/15, avinash shahi wrote: >>> So what it all indicate: high-profile lawyers in the disability >>> sector >>> are at unease while taking on Courts for not complying to the law. A >>> month ago, I read an article in the Bangalore Mirror that why Court >>> premises and functioning are inaccessible to the blind and nobody >>> raises questions. Perhaps our sector has sole hope from the >>> judiciary >>> to arrest our woes,hence nobody takes on the guardian of the >>> Constitution. So lawyers are in a dilemma perhaps. >>> >>> >>> On 6/8/15, Mohib Anwar Rafay wrote: High court may be right in its observation while dismissing the petition that the candidate didn't challenge the impugned circular of the government and participated in the recruitment process . However solely on this ground the relief to the petitioner can not be denyed anyways. Cirtainly the judgment is against the spirit of the principle of equality. Such judgment must be challenged in the supreme court. There are cirtain other states who don't allow visually impaired candidates even to appear in the recruitment process, such as Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. However on my writ petition (Mohib Anwar versus UP public service commission and state of Uttar Pradesh), they allow me to appear in the examination along with the facility of the scribe, but they were not agree on the point of reservation to visually impaired aspirents in judiciary. On 6/8/15, avinash shahi wrote: > This order is utterly disgusting: I contend even hundred per cent > blind is fit for a Civil Court judge > If this man approaches the Supreme Court and shows them evidences > from > US, South Africa and UK where blind judges hold reputed posts in > Courts; I could hope that the highest Court of the land will > pronounce > judgment in his favour. Our judiciary should shed its
Re: [AI] CHENNAI: Partial blindness shatters man’s judge dreams
Need of hour is a PIL in SC for such arbitrary rules which lacks judicial use of disgression. On 6/8/15, Arjun Malhotra wrote: > Hi Mohib > Can I have your contact details Please? > > On 6/8/15, Mohib Anwar Rafay wrote: >> Yes one thing is clear, if supreme court holds that any of such moves >> which is based on arbitrary decision of the government, is infringing >> the right of visually impaired person, even high court can not >> exercise its discretionary administrative power while giving its >> ascent on such appointments. Cirtain states are open for the >> appointments of visually impaired candidates as judges in lower >> judiciary, such as Delhi and Haryana. Presently there are not less >> than 5 judges who have been appointed in Haryana and Delhi judiciary >> under visually impaired quota. >> >> On 6/8/15, Mohib Anwar Rafay wrote: >>> Actually in the matter of appointment of judges to lower judiciary, >>> the things very much depends upon the high court of concern state >>> itself. As it is the requirement under the constitution that while >>> appointment to such judiciary the consultation from high court is >>> necessary. Mean the high court in this respect is performing the >>> administrative as wel judicial function. If you are aggrieved with the >>> decision of the government for not providing the seat in lower >>> judiciary, you will be before the same high court who didn't give its >>> ascent for such appointment. So the matter is not that much easy. >>> While conducting a hearing in my matter, on the plea of state counsel >>> that such reservation can only be given after proper approval of high >>> court itself, Allahabad high court observed that you (government) >>> didn't come before us for any kind of such consultation. >>> >>> On 6/8/15, avinash shahi wrote: This is an opportune time all blind lawyers practicing in several High Courts as well in the Supreme Court should write an open letter to the CJI and CC it to the PMO of India, And publicise this in the media. I'm sure things are gonna get better. One could also take on board the blind judge in one of districts in MP as reported in the news an year ago. I wish interested candidates don't miss this opportunity. On 6/8/15, umesh kasab wrote: > Supposedly most progressive organ of government falls prey to the > simplest and straightest dictum-Its easy to preach than practice! What > are the requirements of the job, by the way, that disables the > candidate from performing the duties in a proper way? Has this part > got any mentioning in the verdict? > > On 6/8/15, avinash shahi wrote: >> So what it all indicate: high-profile lawyers in the disability >> sector >> are at unease while taking on Courts for not complying to the law. A >> month ago, I read an article in the Bangalore Mirror that why Court >> premises and functioning are inaccessible to the blind and nobody >> raises questions. Perhaps our sector has sole hope from the judiciary >> to arrest our woes,hence nobody takes on the guardian of the >> Constitution. So lawyers are in a dilemma perhaps. >> >> >> On 6/8/15, Mohib Anwar Rafay wrote: >>> High court may be right in its observation while dismissing the >>> petition that the candidate didn't challenge the impugned circular >>> of >>> the government and participated in the recruitment process . However >>> solely on this ground the relief to the petitioner can not be denyed >>> anyways. Cirtainly the judgment is against the spirit of the >>> principle >>> of equality. Such judgment must be challenged in the supreme court. >>> There are cirtain other states who don't allow visually impaired >>> candidates even to appear in the recruitment process, such as Uttar >>> Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. However on my writ petition (Mohib Anwar >>> versus UP public service commission and state of Uttar Pradesh), >>> they >>> allow me to appear in the examination along with the facility of the >>> scribe, but they were not agree on the point of reservation to >>> visually impaired aspirents in judiciary. >>> >>> On 6/8/15, avinash shahi wrote: This order is utterly disgusting: I contend even hundred per cent blind is fit for a Civil Court judge If this man approaches the Supreme Court and shows them evidences from US, South Africa and UK where blind judges hold reputed posts in Courts; I could hope that the highest Court of the land will pronounce judgment in his favour. Our judiciary should shed its contradictory approach while ensuring employment to persons with blindness. If a blind could become a parliamentarian and join Indian executive then there is no doubt he/she is equally competent to discharge his/her duty
Re: [AI] CHENNAI: Partial blindness shatters man’s judge dreams
Hi Mohib Can I have your contact details Please? On 6/8/15, Mohib Anwar Rafay wrote: > Yes one thing is clear, if supreme court holds that any of such moves > which is based on arbitrary decision of the government, is infringing > the right of visually impaired person, even high court can not > exercise its discretionary administrative power while giving its > ascent on such appointments. Cirtain states are open for the > appointments of visually impaired candidates as judges in lower > judiciary, such as Delhi and Haryana. Presently there are not less > than 5 judges who have been appointed in Haryana and Delhi judiciary > under visually impaired quota. > > On 6/8/15, Mohib Anwar Rafay wrote: >> Actually in the matter of appointment of judges to lower judiciary, >> the things very much depends upon the high court of concern state >> itself. As it is the requirement under the constitution that while >> appointment to such judiciary the consultation from high court is >> necessary. Mean the high court in this respect is performing the >> administrative as wel judicial function. If you are aggrieved with the >> decision of the government for not providing the seat in lower >> judiciary, you will be before the same high court who didn't give its >> ascent for such appointment. So the matter is not that much easy. >> While conducting a hearing in my matter, on the plea of state counsel >> that such reservation can only be given after proper approval of high >> court itself, Allahabad high court observed that you (government) >> didn't come before us for any kind of such consultation. >> >> On 6/8/15, avinash shahi wrote: >>> This is an opportune time all blind lawyers practicing in several High >>> Courts as well in the Supreme Court should write an open letter to the >>> CJI and CC it to the PMO of India, And publicise this in the media. >>> I'm sure things are gonna get better. One could also take on board the >>> blind judge in one of districts in MP as reported in the news an year >>> ago. I wish interested candidates don't miss this opportunity. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 6/8/15, umesh kasab wrote: Supposedly most progressive organ of government falls prey to the simplest and straightest dictum-Its easy to preach than practice! What are the requirements of the job, by the way, that disables the candidate from performing the duties in a proper way? Has this part got any mentioning in the verdict? On 6/8/15, avinash shahi wrote: > So what it all indicate: high-profile lawyers in the disability sector > are at unease while taking on Courts for not complying to the law. A > month ago, I read an article in the Bangalore Mirror that why Court > premises and functioning are inaccessible to the blind and nobody > raises questions. Perhaps our sector has sole hope from the judiciary > to arrest our woes,hence nobody takes on the guardian of the > Constitution. So lawyers are in a dilemma perhaps. > > > On 6/8/15, Mohib Anwar Rafay wrote: >> High court may be right in its observation while dismissing the >> petition that the candidate didn't challenge the impugned circular of >> the government and participated in the recruitment process . However >> solely on this ground the relief to the petitioner can not be denyed >> anyways. Cirtainly the judgment is against the spirit of the >> principle >> of equality. Such judgment must be challenged in the supreme court. >> There are cirtain other states who don't allow visually impaired >> candidates even to appear in the recruitment process, such as Uttar >> Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. However on my writ petition (Mohib Anwar >> versus UP public service commission and state of Uttar Pradesh), they >> allow me to appear in the examination along with the facility of the >> scribe, but they were not agree on the point of reservation to >> visually impaired aspirents in judiciary. >> >> On 6/8/15, avinash shahi wrote: >>> This order is utterly disgusting: I contend even hundred per cent >>> blind is fit for a Civil Court judge >>> If this man approaches the Supreme Court and shows them evidences >>> from >>> US, South Africa and UK where blind judges hold reputed posts in >>> Courts; I could hope that the highest Court of the land will >>> pronounce >>> judgment in his favour. Our judiciary should shed its contradictory >>> approach while ensuring employment to persons with blindness. If a >>> blind could become a parliamentarian and join Indian executive then >>> there is no doubt he/she is equally competent to discharge his/her >>> duty as a Civil Court Judge. India's former CCPD was a blind judge >>> and >>> exercised all rights as a Civil Court Judge. >>> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/Partial-blindness-shatters-mans-judge-dreams/articleshow/47578609.c
Re: [AI] CHENNAI: Partial blindness shatters man’s judge dreams
Yes one thing is clear, if supreme court holds that any of such moves which is based on arbitrary decision of the government, is infringing the right of visually impaired person, even high court can not exercise its discretionary administrative power while giving its ascent on such appointments. Cirtain states are open for the appointments of visually impaired candidates as judges in lower judiciary, such as Delhi and Haryana. Presently there are not less than 5 judges who have been appointed in Haryana and Delhi judiciary under visually impaired quota. On 6/8/15, Mohib Anwar Rafay wrote: > Actually in the matter of appointment of judges to lower judiciary, > the things very much depends upon the high court of concern state > itself. As it is the requirement under the constitution that while > appointment to such judiciary the consultation from high court is > necessary. Mean the high court in this respect is performing the > administrative as wel judicial function. If you are aggrieved with the > decision of the government for not providing the seat in lower > judiciary, you will be before the same high court who didn't give its > ascent for such appointment. So the matter is not that much easy. > While conducting a hearing in my matter, on the plea of state counsel > that such reservation can only be given after proper approval of high > court itself, Allahabad high court observed that you (government) > didn't come before us for any kind of such consultation. > > On 6/8/15, avinash shahi wrote: >> This is an opportune time all blind lawyers practicing in several High >> Courts as well in the Supreme Court should write an open letter to the >> CJI and CC it to the PMO of India, And publicise this in the media. >> I'm sure things are gonna get better. One could also take on board the >> blind judge in one of districts in MP as reported in the news an year >> ago. I wish interested candidates don't miss this opportunity. >> >> >> >> >> On 6/8/15, umesh kasab wrote: >>> Supposedly most progressive organ of government falls prey to the >>> simplest and straightest dictum-Its easy to preach than practice! What >>> are the requirements of the job, by the way, that disables the >>> candidate from performing the duties in a proper way? Has this part >>> got any mentioning in the verdict? >>> >>> On 6/8/15, avinash shahi wrote: So what it all indicate: high-profile lawyers in the disability sector are at unease while taking on Courts for not complying to the law. A month ago, I read an article in the Bangalore Mirror that why Court premises and functioning are inaccessible to the blind and nobody raises questions. Perhaps our sector has sole hope from the judiciary to arrest our woes,hence nobody takes on the guardian of the Constitution. So lawyers are in a dilemma perhaps. On 6/8/15, Mohib Anwar Rafay wrote: > High court may be right in its observation while dismissing the > petition that the candidate didn't challenge the impugned circular of > the government and participated in the recruitment process . However > solely on this ground the relief to the petitioner can not be denyed > anyways. Cirtainly the judgment is against the spirit of the principle > of equality. Such judgment must be challenged in the supreme court. > There are cirtain other states who don't allow visually impaired > candidates even to appear in the recruitment process, such as Uttar > Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. However on my writ petition (Mohib Anwar > versus UP public service commission and state of Uttar Pradesh), they > allow me to appear in the examination along with the facility of the > scribe, but they were not agree on the point of reservation to > visually impaired aspirents in judiciary. > > On 6/8/15, avinash shahi wrote: >> This order is utterly disgusting: I contend even hundred per cent >> blind is fit for a Civil Court judge >> If this man approaches the Supreme Court and shows them evidences >> from >> US, South Africa and UK where blind judges hold reputed posts in >> Courts; I could hope that the highest Court of the land will >> pronounce >> judgment in his favour. Our judiciary should shed its contradictory >> approach while ensuring employment to persons with blindness. If a >> blind could become a parliamentarian and join Indian executive then >> there is no doubt he/she is equally competent to discharge his/her >> duty as a Civil Court Judge. India's former CCPD was a blind judge >> and >> exercised all rights as a Civil Court Judge. >> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/Partial-blindness-shatters-mans-judge-dreams/articleshow/47578609.cms >> >> >> A person suffering from 70% blindness has failed to secure the post >> of >> a civil judge despite clearing the written examination and viva voce, >> as
Re: [AI] CHENNAI: Partial blindness shatters man’s judge dreams
Actually in the matter of appointment of judges to lower judiciary, the things very much depends upon the high court of concern state itself. As it is the requirement under the constitution that while appointment to such judiciary the consultation from high court is necessary. Mean the high court in this respect is performing the administrative as wel judicial function. If you are aggrieved with the decision of the government for not providing the seat in lower judiciary, you will be before the same high court who didn't give its ascent for such appointment. So the matter is not that much easy. While conducting a hearing in my matter, on the plea of state counsel that such reservation can only be given after proper approval of high court itself, Allahabad high court observed that you (government) didn't come before us for any kind of such consultation. On 6/8/15, avinash shahi wrote: > This is an opportune time all blind lawyers practicing in several High > Courts as well in the Supreme Court should write an open letter to the > CJI and CC it to the PMO of India, And publicise this in the media. > I'm sure things are gonna get better. One could also take on board the > blind judge in one of districts in MP as reported in the news an year > ago. I wish interested candidates don't miss this opportunity. > > > > > On 6/8/15, umesh kasab wrote: >> Supposedly most progressive organ of government falls prey to the >> simplest and straightest dictum-Its easy to preach than practice! What >> are the requirements of the job, by the way, that disables the >> candidate from performing the duties in a proper way? Has this part >> got any mentioning in the verdict? >> >> On 6/8/15, avinash shahi wrote: >>> So what it all indicate: high-profile lawyers in the disability sector >>> are at unease while taking on Courts for not complying to the law. A >>> month ago, I read an article in the Bangalore Mirror that why Court >>> premises and functioning are inaccessible to the blind and nobody >>> raises questions. Perhaps our sector has sole hope from the judiciary >>> to arrest our woes,hence nobody takes on the guardian of the >>> Constitution. So lawyers are in a dilemma perhaps. >>> >>> >>> On 6/8/15, Mohib Anwar Rafay wrote: High court may be right in its observation while dismissing the petition that the candidate didn't challenge the impugned circular of the government and participated in the recruitment process . However solely on this ground the relief to the petitioner can not be denyed anyways. Cirtainly the judgment is against the spirit of the principle of equality. Such judgment must be challenged in the supreme court. There are cirtain other states who don't allow visually impaired candidates even to appear in the recruitment process, such as Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. However on my writ petition (Mohib Anwar versus UP public service commission and state of Uttar Pradesh), they allow me to appear in the examination along with the facility of the scribe, but they were not agree on the point of reservation to visually impaired aspirents in judiciary. On 6/8/15, avinash shahi wrote: > This order is utterly disgusting: I contend even hundred per cent > blind is fit for a Civil Court judge > If this man approaches the Supreme Court and shows them evidences from > US, South Africa and UK where blind judges hold reputed posts in > Courts; I could hope that the highest Court of the land will pronounce > judgment in his favour. Our judiciary should shed its contradictory > approach while ensuring employment to persons with blindness. If a > blind could become a parliamentarian and join Indian executive then > there is no doubt he/she is equally competent to discharge his/her > duty as a Civil Court Judge. India's former CCPD was a blind judge and > exercised all rights as a Civil Court Judge. > http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/Partial-blindness-shatters-mans-judge-dreams/articleshow/47578609.cms > > > A person suffering from 70% blindness has failed to secure the post of > a civil judge despite clearing the written examination and viva voce, > as the Madras high court ruled that visual disability of more than the > maximum permissible limit of 50% cannot be allowed for civil judges. > > Dismissing the writ petition of the aspirant V Surendra Mohan, > Justice V Ramasubramanian said, "Taking into account the nature of > duties to be performed by the civil judge, the government, in > consultation with the high court, had proposed to restrict the > applicability of the benefit of reservation only to those whose > disability ranges from 40-50%. If a person has not less than 40% > blindness, he becomes eligible for the benefit of reservation. This > fundamental and essential feature of the reservation is not taken
Re: [AI] CHENNAI: Partial blindness shatters man’s judge dreams
This is an opportune time all blind lawyers practicing in several High Courts as well in the Supreme Court should write an open letter to the CJI and CC it to the PMO of India, And publicise this in the media. I'm sure things are gonna get better. One could also take on board the blind judge in one of districts in MP as reported in the news an year ago. I wish interested candidates don't miss this opportunity. On 6/8/15, umesh kasab wrote: > Supposedly most progressive organ of government falls prey to the > simplest and straightest dictum-Its easy to preach than practice! What > are the requirements of the job, by the way, that disables the > candidate from performing the duties in a proper way? Has this part > got any mentioning in the verdict? > > On 6/8/15, avinash shahi wrote: >> So what it all indicate: high-profile lawyers in the disability sector >> are at unease while taking on Courts for not complying to the law. A >> month ago, I read an article in the Bangalore Mirror that why Court >> premises and functioning are inaccessible to the blind and nobody >> raises questions. Perhaps our sector has sole hope from the judiciary >> to arrest our woes,hence nobody takes on the guardian of the >> Constitution. So lawyers are in a dilemma perhaps. >> >> >> On 6/8/15, Mohib Anwar Rafay wrote: >>> High court may be right in its observation while dismissing the >>> petition that the candidate didn't challenge the impugned circular of >>> the government and participated in the recruitment process . However >>> solely on this ground the relief to the petitioner can not be denyed >>> anyways. Cirtainly the judgment is against the spirit of the principle >>> of equality. Such judgment must be challenged in the supreme court. >>> There are cirtain other states who don't allow visually impaired >>> candidates even to appear in the recruitment process, such as Uttar >>> Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. However on my writ petition (Mohib Anwar >>> versus UP public service commission and state of Uttar Pradesh), they >>> allow me to appear in the examination along with the facility of the >>> scribe, but they were not agree on the point of reservation to >>> visually impaired aspirents in judiciary. >>> >>> On 6/8/15, avinash shahi wrote: This order is utterly disgusting: I contend even hundred per cent blind is fit for a Civil Court judge If this man approaches the Supreme Court and shows them evidences from US, South Africa and UK where blind judges hold reputed posts in Courts; I could hope that the highest Court of the land will pronounce judgment in his favour. Our judiciary should shed its contradictory approach while ensuring employment to persons with blindness. If a blind could become a parliamentarian and join Indian executive then there is no doubt he/she is equally competent to discharge his/her duty as a Civil Court Judge. India's former CCPD was a blind judge and exercised all rights as a Civil Court Judge. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/Partial-blindness-shatters-mans-judge-dreams/articleshow/47578609.cms A person suffering from 70% blindness has failed to secure the post of a civil judge despite clearing the written examination and viva voce, as the Madras high court ruled that visual disability of more than the maximum permissible limit of 50% cannot be allowed for civil judges. Dismissing the writ petition of the aspirant V Surendra Mohan, Justice V Ramasubramanian said, "Taking into account the nature of duties to be performed by the civil judge, the government, in consultation with the high court, had proposed to restrict the applicability of the benefit of reservation only to those whose disability ranges from 40-50%. If a person has not less than 40% blindness, he becomes eligible for the benefit of reservation. This fundamental and essential feature of the reservation is not taken away by the proposed amendment. The proposed amendment, while not depriving the benefit of reservation to those who come within the definition of the expression 'person with disability', restricts it to those whose percentage of disability, is 50% less. This cannot be termed as nullifying the effect of the statute." Surendra Mohan, a partially blind person with the percentage of disability at 70%, applied for civil judge post, and passed the written examination. Since he was not included in the list of candidates short-listed for viva voce, he filed the present writ petition for inclusion in the interview list. The court first allowed him to participate in the interview and said the result would be kept in a sealed envelope. But later it passed orders in favour of declaring the result, in purview of a different case. Surendra Mohan secured 178 marks out of 400 in written exam
Re: [AI] CHENNAI: Partial blindness shatters man’s judge dreams
Supposedly most progressive organ of government falls prey to the simplest and straightest dictum-Its easy to preach than practice! What are the requirements of the job, by the way, that disables the candidate from performing the duties in a proper way? Has this part got any mentioning in the verdict? On 6/8/15, avinash shahi wrote: > So what it all indicate: high-profile lawyers in the disability sector > are at unease while taking on Courts for not complying to the law. A > month ago, I read an article in the Bangalore Mirror that why Court > premises and functioning are inaccessible to the blind and nobody > raises questions. Perhaps our sector has sole hope from the judiciary > to arrest our woes,hence nobody takes on the guardian of the > Constitution. So lawyers are in a dilemma perhaps. > > > On 6/8/15, Mohib Anwar Rafay wrote: >> High court may be right in its observation while dismissing the >> petition that the candidate didn't challenge the impugned circular of >> the government and participated in the recruitment process . However >> solely on this ground the relief to the petitioner can not be denyed >> anyways. Cirtainly the judgment is against the spirit of the principle >> of equality. Such judgment must be challenged in the supreme court. >> There are cirtain other states who don't allow visually impaired >> candidates even to appear in the recruitment process, such as Uttar >> Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. However on my writ petition (Mohib Anwar >> versus UP public service commission and state of Uttar Pradesh), they >> allow me to appear in the examination along with the facility of the >> scribe, but they were not agree on the point of reservation to >> visually impaired aspirents in judiciary. >> >> On 6/8/15, avinash shahi wrote: >>> This order is utterly disgusting: I contend even hundred per cent >>> blind is fit for a Civil Court judge >>> If this man approaches the Supreme Court and shows them evidences from >>> US, South Africa and UK where blind judges hold reputed posts in >>> Courts; I could hope that the highest Court of the land will pronounce >>> judgment in his favour. Our judiciary should shed its contradictory >>> approach while ensuring employment to persons with blindness. If a >>> blind could become a parliamentarian and join Indian executive then >>> there is no doubt he/she is equally competent to discharge his/her >>> duty as a Civil Court Judge. India's former CCPD was a blind judge and >>> exercised all rights as a Civil Court Judge. >>> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/Partial-blindness-shatters-mans-judge-dreams/articleshow/47578609.cms >>> >>> >>> A person suffering from 70% blindness has failed to secure the post of >>> a civil judge despite clearing the written examination and viva voce, >>> as the Madras high court ruled that visual disability of more than the >>> maximum permissible limit of 50% cannot be allowed for civil judges. >>> >>> Dismissing the writ petition of the aspirant V Surendra Mohan, >>> Justice V Ramasubramanian said, "Taking into account the nature of >>> duties to be performed by the civil judge, the government, in >>> consultation with the high court, had proposed to restrict the >>> applicability of the benefit of reservation only to those whose >>> disability ranges from 40-50%. If a person has not less than 40% >>> blindness, he becomes eligible for the benefit of reservation. This >>> fundamental and essential feature of the reservation is not taken away >>> by the proposed amendment. The proposed amendment, while not depriving >>> the benefit of reservation to those who come within the definition of >>> the expression 'person with disability', restricts it to those whose >>> percentage of disability, is 50% less. This cannot be termed as >>> nullifying the effect of the statute." >>> >>> Surendra Mohan, a partially blind person with the percentage of >>> disability at 70%, applied for civil judge post, and passed the >>> written examination. Since he was not included in the list of >>> candidates short-listed for viva voce, he filed the present writ >>> petition for inclusion in the interview list. >>> >>> The court first allowed him to participate in the interview and said >>> the result would be kept in a sealed envelope. But later it passed >>> orders in favour of declaring the result, in purview of a different >>> case. Surendra Mohan secured 178 marks out of 400 in written >>> examination, and 38.25 marks out of 60 in viva voce, it was revealed. >>> >>> A difficulty arose because a government order dated August 8, 2014, >>> had made it clear that the benefit of reservation for the physically >>> challenged is available only to those blind and deaf candidates whose >>> percentage of disability is 40-50%. >>> >>> S Vijay Narayan, senior counsel for Surendra Mohan, then assailed the >>> provision saying it sought to dilute the benefits available to >>> disabled people. Rejecting the submissions, Justice
Re: [AI] CHENNAI: Partial blindness shatters man’s judge dreams
So what it all indicate: high-profile lawyers in the disability sector are at unease while taking on Courts for not complying to the law. A month ago, I read an article in the Bangalore Mirror that why Court premises and functioning are inaccessible to the blind and nobody raises questions. Perhaps our sector has sole hope from the judiciary to arrest our woes,hence nobody takes on the guardian of the Constitution. So lawyers are in a dilemma perhaps. On 6/8/15, Mohib Anwar Rafay wrote: > High court may be right in its observation while dismissing the > petition that the candidate didn't challenge the impugned circular of > the government and participated in the recruitment process . However > solely on this ground the relief to the petitioner can not be denyed > anyways. Cirtainly the judgment is against the spirit of the principle > of equality. Such judgment must be challenged in the supreme court. > There are cirtain other states who don't allow visually impaired > candidates even to appear in the recruitment process, such as Uttar > Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. However on my writ petition (Mohib Anwar > versus UP public service commission and state of Uttar Pradesh), they > allow me to appear in the examination along with the facility of the > scribe, but they were not agree on the point of reservation to > visually impaired aspirents in judiciary. > > On 6/8/15, avinash shahi wrote: >> This order is utterly disgusting: I contend even hundred per cent >> blind is fit for a Civil Court judge >> If this man approaches the Supreme Court and shows them evidences from >> US, South Africa and UK where blind judges hold reputed posts in >> Courts; I could hope that the highest Court of the land will pronounce >> judgment in his favour. Our judiciary should shed its contradictory >> approach while ensuring employment to persons with blindness. If a >> blind could become a parliamentarian and join Indian executive then >> there is no doubt he/she is equally competent to discharge his/her >> duty as a Civil Court Judge. India's former CCPD was a blind judge and >> exercised all rights as a Civil Court Judge. >> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/Partial-blindness-shatters-mans-judge-dreams/articleshow/47578609.cms >> >> >> A person suffering from 70% blindness has failed to secure the post of >> a civil judge despite clearing the written examination and viva voce, >> as the Madras high court ruled that visual disability of more than the >> maximum permissible limit of 50% cannot be allowed for civil judges. >> >> Dismissing the writ petition of the aspirant V Surendra Mohan, >> Justice V Ramasubramanian said, "Taking into account the nature of >> duties to be performed by the civil judge, the government, in >> consultation with the high court, had proposed to restrict the >> applicability of the benefit of reservation only to those whose >> disability ranges from 40-50%. If a person has not less than 40% >> blindness, he becomes eligible for the benefit of reservation. This >> fundamental and essential feature of the reservation is not taken away >> by the proposed amendment. The proposed amendment, while not depriving >> the benefit of reservation to those who come within the definition of >> the expression 'person with disability', restricts it to those whose >> percentage of disability, is 50% less. This cannot be termed as >> nullifying the effect of the statute." >> >> Surendra Mohan, a partially blind person with the percentage of >> disability at 70%, applied for civil judge post, and passed the >> written examination. Since he was not included in the list of >> candidates short-listed for viva voce, he filed the present writ >> petition for inclusion in the interview list. >> >> The court first allowed him to participate in the interview and said >> the result would be kept in a sealed envelope. But later it passed >> orders in favour of declaring the result, in purview of a different >> case. Surendra Mohan secured 178 marks out of 400 in written >> examination, and 38.25 marks out of 60 in viva voce, it was revealed. >> >> A difficulty arose because a government order dated August 8, 2014, >> had made it clear that the benefit of reservation for the physically >> challenged is available only to those blind and deaf candidates whose >> percentage of disability is 40-50%. >> >> S Vijay Narayan, senior counsel for Surendra Mohan, then assailed the >> provision saying it sought to dilute the benefits available to >> disabled people. Rejecting the submissions, Justice Ramasubramanian >> further said it was too late to challenge the selection, because, "a >> person, who participates in a process of selection, cannot later turn >> around and question the prescription contained in the very >> notification for recruitment." >> >> >> -- >> Avinash Shahi >> Doctoral student at Centre for Law and Governance JNU >> >> >> >> Register at the dedicated AccessIndia list for discussing accessibil
Re: [AI] CHENNAI: Partial blindness shatters man’s judge dreams
High court may be right in its observation while dismissing the petition that the candidate didn't challenge the impugned circular of the government and participated in the recruitment process . However solely on this ground the relief to the petitioner can not be denyed anyways. Cirtainly the judgment is against the spirit of the principle of equality. Such judgment must be challenged in the supreme court. There are cirtain other states who don't allow visually impaired candidates even to appear in the recruitment process, such as Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. However on my writ petition (Mohib Anwar versus UP public service commission and state of Uttar Pradesh), they allow me to appear in the examination along with the facility of the scribe, but they were not agree on the point of reservation to visually impaired aspirents in judiciary. On 6/8/15, avinash shahi wrote: > This order is utterly disgusting: I contend even hundred per cent > blind is fit for a Civil Court judge > If this man approaches the Supreme Court and shows them evidences from > US, South Africa and UK where blind judges hold reputed posts in > Courts; I could hope that the highest Court of the land will pronounce > judgment in his favour. Our judiciary should shed its contradictory > approach while ensuring employment to persons with blindness. If a > blind could become a parliamentarian and join Indian executive then > there is no doubt he/she is equally competent to discharge his/her > duty as a Civil Court Judge. India's former CCPD was a blind judge and > exercised all rights as a Civil Court Judge. > http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/Partial-blindness-shatters-mans-judge-dreams/articleshow/47578609.cms > > > A person suffering from 70% blindness has failed to secure the post of > a civil judge despite clearing the written examination and viva voce, > as the Madras high court ruled that visual disability of more than the > maximum permissible limit of 50% cannot be allowed for civil judges. > > Dismissing the writ petition of the aspirant V Surendra Mohan, > Justice V Ramasubramanian said, "Taking into account the nature of > duties to be performed by the civil judge, the government, in > consultation with the high court, had proposed to restrict the > applicability of the benefit of reservation only to those whose > disability ranges from 40-50%. If a person has not less than 40% > blindness, he becomes eligible for the benefit of reservation. This > fundamental and essential feature of the reservation is not taken away > by the proposed amendment. The proposed amendment, while not depriving > the benefit of reservation to those who come within the definition of > the expression 'person with disability', restricts it to those whose > percentage of disability, is 50% less. This cannot be termed as > nullifying the effect of the statute." > > Surendra Mohan, a partially blind person with the percentage of > disability at 70%, applied for civil judge post, and passed the > written examination. Since he was not included in the list of > candidates short-listed for viva voce, he filed the present writ > petition for inclusion in the interview list. > > The court first allowed him to participate in the interview and said > the result would be kept in a sealed envelope. But later it passed > orders in favour of declaring the result, in purview of a different > case. Surendra Mohan secured 178 marks out of 400 in written > examination, and 38.25 marks out of 60 in viva voce, it was revealed. > > A difficulty arose because a government order dated August 8, 2014, > had made it clear that the benefit of reservation for the physically > challenged is available only to those blind and deaf candidates whose > percentage of disability is 40-50%. > > S Vijay Narayan, senior counsel for Surendra Mohan, then assailed the > provision saying it sought to dilute the benefits available to > disabled people. Rejecting the submissions, Justice Ramasubramanian > further said it was too late to challenge the selection, because, "a > person, who participates in a process of selection, cannot later turn > around and question the prescription contained in the very > notification for recruitment." > > > -- > Avinash Shahi > Doctoral student at Centre for Law and Governance JNU > > > > 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/accessindia@accessindia.org.in/ > > 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 > > > Disclaimer: > 1. Contents of the mails, factual, or otherwise, reflec
