Re: [AI] Preparation tofilethepetitionagainsttheScribeGuidelines.....
strick action should be taken by court against to these kind of officers. On 7/27/11, HARSHVARDHAN SINGH NEGI harshvardhan.n...@gmail.com wrote: Same instructions should be followed in every exam whether it is banks or DSSB ETC. If VI community is not get up now then results are very very serious regarding getting jobs in future. They are behaving like illiterate person, The factual position is because at present time No employer is ready to take VI persons. That is why they are behaving like this. Thanks HS Negi - Original Message - From: Amit Bhatt misterbh...@gmail.com To: accessindia@accessindia.org.in Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 9:20 PM Subject: Re: [AI] Preparation tofilethepetitionagainsttheScribeGuidelines. Dear Akhilesh, It was a total mismanagement and misconduct shown by the examination Authority on 24th of July 2011. The chief Manager, mr. Sanjay Singh who was deputed at my Center, did even not allow those whose Scribe are under graduate. We all tried to make him understand but he was not ready to listen anything. when we asked him whether he can offer a job in SBI to the candidate who is under graduate? mr. Sanjay said no we won't because the candidate should be graduate as per the stipulated criteria. We knew what he would answer and this is exactly what he said! then we asked, when an under graduate cannot be offered job in your Bank, then how would you not consider the Scribe who is just appearing his graduation. The candidate or any person would not be called graduate unless he completes his graduate degree. Till the time he would be just known as a 12th pass student. When a Blind candidate wish to appear exam and demand to eliminate the rule of less than 60% then we are called cheater! When we try to make the people understand, then they say we are teaching them law!!! but I am surprised to see the logics and understanding of the senior officers like Mr. Sanjay Singh! . very Shame! Anyways, I am pasting the below observation of the Court defining the meaning of the one grade lower. Amita vs. Rajiv Yaduvanshi and Ors Filed Under: Section 31 Persons of the Disabilities Act, 1995 Appellant: Amita Respondent: Rajiv Yaduvanshi and Ors. Citation: C.W.P. No. 2067 of 2003 3099 of 2003 Decided on 30.5.2003 (Unreported) Court: In the High Court of Delhi Judges: B.C. Patel and A.K. Sikri Amita filed the present appeal against the order of the Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) of not allowing her to appear for the Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) entrance exam on grounds that her scribe was a B.A, second year student. Facts Amita was a visually impaired person who obtained her M.A., B.A. (Hons.) and B. Ed degrees. At the time of the case, she was pursuing her further studies in M.Ed. She applied for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) in response to an advertisement issued by the Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB). Keeping in mind the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act, certain posts were reserved for the visually handicapped persons. The DSSSB also issued instructions for the visually handicapped persons taking the examination. According to the instructions, a visually handicapped candidate had to arrange for his/her scribe (person who writes the exam for the visually handicapped persons) at his/her own cost. It was also mentioned in the instructions that the academic qualifications of the scribe should be one level below the minimum educational qualification required for the post. Amita made arrangements for her own scribe, a second year BA (Hons.) student. The examination commenced and Amita started answering questions through her scribe. However, after some time the officer-in charge came and took away the paper and the admit card on the ground that the scribe was a 2nd year student and could not be Amita's scribe. According to him, the Scribe should have been only XIIth pass and therefore she wasn't permitted to act as a scribe. Amita then filed the present petition. This petition was initially listed before the Single Judge of the High Court. However, Amita's lawyer made a submission before the Single Judge that the matter should be treated as public interest litigation as it was likely to affect a large number of blind students. The Single Judge accordingly referred the matter to a Higher Bench. In the meantime another writ petition was also filed in the nature of 'public interest litigation' raising identical issues. An additional person, Monica Sharma filed another petition that raised similar issues. In these circumstances, these petitions were heard together by the Higher Bench of the High Court. Arguments made on behalf of Amita Amita's lawyer contended that the qualifications for the post were BA, B.Ed. while the qualification of the scribe which was that of a second year student of BA, was one level lower. According
Re: [AI] Preparation tofilethepetitionagainsttheScribeGuidelines.....
Thanks Amit, I didnt know of this judgement. Anyone who has anything else to say about this case must say it now. It will definitely help. Kanchan - Original Message - From: Amit Bhatt misterbh...@gmail.com To: accessindia@accessindia.org.in Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 9:20 PM Subject: Re: [AI] Preparation tofilethepetitionagainsttheScribeGuidelines. Dear Akhilesh, It was a total mismanagement and misconduct shown by the examination Authority on 24th of July 2011. The chief Manager, mr. Sanjay Singh who was deputed at my Center, did even not allow those whose Scribe are under graduate. We all tried to make him understand but he was not ready to listen anything. when we asked him whether he can offer a job in SBI to the candidate who is under graduate? mr. Sanjay said no we won't because the candidate should be graduate as per the stipulated criteria. We knew what he would answer and this is exactly what he said! then we asked, when an under graduate cannot be offered job in your Bank, then how would you not consider the Scribe who is just appearing his graduation. The candidate or any person would not be called graduate unless he completes his graduate degree. Till the time he would be just known as a 12th pass student. When a Blind candidate wish to appear exam and demand to eliminate the rule of less than 60% then we are called cheater! When we try to make the people understand, then they say we are teaching them law!!! but I am surprised to see the logics and understanding of the senior officers like Mr. Sanjay Singh! . very Shame! Anyways, I am pasting the below observation of the Court defining the meaning of the one grade lower. Amita vs. Rajiv Yaduvanshi and Ors Filed Under: Section 31 Persons of the Disabilities Act, 1995 Appellant: Amita Respondent: Rajiv Yaduvanshi and Ors. Citation: C.W.P. No. 2067 of 2003 3099 of 2003 Decided on 30.5.2003 (Unreported) Court: In the High Court of Delhi Judges: B.C. Patel and A.K. Sikri Amita filed the present appeal against the order of the Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) of not allowing her to appear for the Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) entrance exam on grounds that her scribe was a B.A, second year student. Facts Amita was a visually impaired person who obtained her M.A., B.A. (Hons.) and B. Ed degrees. At the time of the case, she was pursuing her further studies in M.Ed. She applied for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) in response to an advertisement issued by the Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB). Keeping in mind the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act, certain posts were reserved for the visually handicapped persons. The DSSSB also issued instructions for the visually handicapped persons taking the examination. According to the instructions, a visually handicapped candidate had to arrange for his/her scribe (person who writes the exam for the visually handicapped persons) at his/her own cost. It was also mentioned in the instructions that the academic qualifications of the scribe should be one level below the minimum educational qualification required for the post. Amita made arrangements for her own scribe, a second year BA (Hons.) student. The examination commenced and Amita started answering questions through her scribe. However, after some time the officer-in charge came and took away the paper and the admit card on the ground that the scribe was a 2nd year student and could not be Amita's scribe. According to him, the Scribe should have been only XIIth pass and therefore she wasn't permitted to act as a scribe. Amita then filed the present petition. This petition was initially listed before the Single Judge of the High Court. However, Amita's lawyer made a submission before the Single Judge that the matter should be treated as public interest litigation as it was likely to affect a large number of blind students. The Single Judge accordingly referred the matter to a Higher Bench. In the meantime another writ petition was also filed in the nature of 'public interest litigation' raising identical issues. An additional person, Monica Sharma filed another petition that raised similar issues. In these circumstances, these petitions were heard together by the Higher Bench of the High Court. Arguments made on behalf of Amita Amita's lawyer contended that the qualifications for the post were BA, B.Ed. while the qualification of the scribe which was that of a second year student of BA, was one level lower. According to the lawyer, the action of the DSSSB was completely unjustified. The lawyer also argued that such a provision for insisting that candidates bring their own scribes was in violation with the provisions of Section 31 of the Act and it was the duty of DSSB to provide a scribe for Amita. Arguments made on behalf of DSSSB On the other hand, the DSSSB's lawyer argued that there were no instructions issued by the Government on the subject of arrangement
Re: [AI] Preparation tofilethepetitionagainsttheScribeGuidelines.....
these are the clearcut guidelines put forth by the court. I think who so ever is going to appear for the 7th august exam for the associate banks of sbi, should bring this judgement with them. it'll help a lot!!! as far my understanding goes, not accepting these, would amount to contempt of court. dear amit ji, I was also present at the same center at that day, but unfortunetly I couldn't do anything as I was busy writing my own exam. anyway, thanks a lot for sharing this Extremely important decision. Akhilesh. On 7/26/11, Kanchan Pamnani kanchanpamn...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Amit, I didnt know of this judgement. Anyone who has anything else to say about this case must say it now. It will definitely help. Kanchan - Original Message - From: Amit Bhatt misterbh...@gmail.com To: accessindia@accessindia.org.in Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 9:20 PM Subject: Re: [AI] Preparation tofilethepetitionagainsttheScribeGuidelines. Dear Akhilesh, It was a total mismanagement and misconduct shown by the examination Authority on 24th of July 2011. The chief Manager, mr. Sanjay Singh who was deputed at my Center, did even not allow those whose Scribe are under graduate. We all tried to make him understand but he was not ready to listen anything. when we asked him whether he can offer a job in SBI to the candidate who is under graduate? mr. Sanjay said no we won't because the candidate should be graduate as per the stipulated criteria. We knew what he would answer and this is exactly what he said! then we asked, when an under graduate cannot be offered job in your Bank, then how would you not consider the Scribe who is just appearing his graduation. The candidate or any person would not be called graduate unless he completes his graduate degree. Till the time he would be just known as a 12th pass student. When a Blind candidate wish to appear exam and demand to eliminate the rule of less than 60% then we are called cheater! When we try to make the people understand, then they say we are teaching them law!!! but I am surprised to see the logics and understanding of the senior officers like Mr. Sanjay Singh! . very Shame! Anyways, I am pasting the below observation of the Court defining the meaning of the one grade lower. Amita vs. Rajiv Yaduvanshi and Ors Filed Under: Section 31 Persons of the Disabilities Act, 1995 Appellant: Amita Respondent: Rajiv Yaduvanshi and Ors. Citation: C.W.P. No. 2067 of 2003 3099 of 2003 Decided on 30.5.2003 (Unreported) Court: In the High Court of Delhi Judges: B.C. Patel and A.K. Sikri Amita filed the present appeal against the order of the Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) of not allowing her to appear for the Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) entrance exam on grounds that her scribe was a B.A, second year student. Facts Amita was a visually impaired person who obtained her M.A., B.A. (Hons.) and B. Ed degrees. At the time of the case, she was pursuing her further studies in M.Ed. She applied for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) in response to an advertisement issued by the Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB). Keeping in mind the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act, certain posts were reserved for the visually handicapped persons. The DSSSB also issued instructions for the visually handicapped persons taking the examination. According to the instructions, a visually handicapped candidate had to arrange for his/her scribe (person who writes the exam for the visually handicapped persons) at his/her own cost. It was also mentioned in the instructions that the academic qualifications of the scribe should be one level below the minimum educational qualification required for the post. Amita made arrangements for her own scribe, a second year BA (Hons.) student. The examination commenced and Amita started answering questions through her scribe. However, after some time the officer-in charge came and took away the paper and the admit card on the ground that the scribe was a 2nd year student and could not be Amita's scribe. According to him, the Scribe should have been only XIIth pass and therefore she wasn't permitted to act as a scribe. Amita then filed the present petition. This petition was initially listed before the Single Judge of the High Court. However, Amita's lawyer made a submission before the Single Judge that the matter should be treated as public interest litigation as it was likely to affect a large number of blind students. The Single Judge accordingly referred the matter to a Higher Bench. In the meantime another writ petition was also filed in the nature of 'public interest litigation' raising identical issues. An additional person, Monica Sharma filed another petition that raised similar issues. In these circumstances, these petitions were heard together by the Higher Bench of the High Court. Arguments made on behalf
Re: [AI] Preparation tofilethepetitionagainsttheScribeGuidelines.....
Thanks Amit, I didnt know of this judgement. Anyone who has anything else to say about this case must say it now. It will definitely help. Kanchan - Original Message - From: Amit Bhatt misterbh...@gmail.com To: accessindia@accessindia.org.in Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 9:20 PM Subject: Re: [AI] Preparation tofilethepetitionagainsttheScribeGuidelines. Dear Akhilesh, It was a total mismanagement and misconduct shown by the examination Authority on 24th of July 2011. The chief Manager, mr. Sanjay Singh who was deputed at my Center, did even not allow those whose Scribe are under graduate. We all tried to make him understand but he was not ready to listen anything. when we asked him whether he can offer a job in SBI to the candidate who is under graduate? mr. Sanjay said no we won't because the candidate should be graduate as per the stipulated criteria. We knew what he would answer and this is exactly what he said! then we asked, when an under graduate cannot be offered job in your Bank, then how would you not consider the Scribe who is just appearing his graduation. The candidate or any person would not be called graduate unless he completes his graduate degree. Till the time he would be just known as a 12th pass student. When a Blind candidate wish to appear exam and demand to eliminate the rule of less than 60% then we are called cheater! When we try to make the people understand, then they say we are teaching them law!!! but I am surprised to see the logics and understanding of the senior officers like Mr. Sanjay Singh! . very Shame! Anyways, I am pasting the below observation of the Court defining the meaning of the one grade lower. Amita vs. Rajiv Yaduvanshi and Ors Filed Under: Section 31 Persons of the Disabilities Act, 1995 Appellant: Amita Respondent: Rajiv Yaduvanshi and Ors. Citation: C.W.P. No. 2067 of 2003 3099 of 2003 Decided on 30.5.2003 (Unreported) Court: In the High Court of Delhi Judges: B.C. Patel and A.K. Sikri Amita filed the present appeal against the order of the Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) of not allowing her to appear for the Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) entrance exam on grounds that her scribe was a B.A, second year student. Facts Amita was a visually impaired person who obtained her M.A., B.A. (Hons.) and B. Ed degrees. At the time of the case, she was pursuing her further studies in M.Ed. She applied for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) in response to an advertisement issued by the Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB). Keeping in mind the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act, certain posts were reserved for the visually handicapped persons. The DSSSB also issued instructions for the visually handicapped persons taking the examination. According to the instructions, a visually handicapped candidate had to arrange for his/her scribe (person who writes the exam for the visually handicapped persons) at his/her own cost. It was also mentioned in the instructions that the academic qualifications of the scribe should be one level below the minimum educational qualification required for the post. Amita made arrangements for her own scribe, a second year BA (Hons.) student. The examination commenced and Amita started answering questions through her scribe. However, after some time the officer-in charge came and took away the paper and the admit card on the ground that the scribe was a 2nd year student and could not be Amita's scribe. According to him, the Scribe should have been only XIIth pass and therefore she wasn't permitted to act as a scribe. Amita then filed the present petition. This petition was initially listed before the Single Judge of the High Court. However, Amita's lawyer made a submission before the Single Judge that the matter should be treated as public interest litigation as it was likely to affect a large number of blind students. The Single Judge accordingly referred the matter to a Higher Bench. In the meantime another writ petition was also filed in the nature of 'public interest litigation' raising identical issues. An additional person, Monica Sharma filed another petition that raised similar issues. In these circumstances, these petitions were heard together by the Higher Bench of the High Court. Arguments made on behalf of Amita Amita's lawyer contended that the qualifications for the post were BA, B.Ed. while the qualification of the scribe which was that of a second year student of BA, was one level lower. According to the lawyer, the action of the DSSSB was completely unjustified. The lawyer also argued that such a provision for insisting that candidates bring their own scribes was in violation with the provisions of Section 31 of the Act and it was the duty of DSSB to provide a scribe for Amita. Arguments made on behalf of DSSSB On the other hand, the DSSSB's lawyer argued that there were no instructions issued by the Government on the subject of arrangement
Re: [AI] Preparation tofilethepetitionagainsttheScribeGuidelines.....
hello all i would like to appreciate inputs by all the members for taking up the issue. i also want to say one thing more that can also be included in this issue , if found right to do so by senior members: it is regarding the circular issued by SBI for excluding a few categories of visually impaired persons from recruitment and promotion. this clearly shows their intentions not to offer opprotunities to visually impaired persons and harass them in every manner. so they are doing such things that happened on sunday. On 7/27/11, Kanchan Pamnani kanchanpamn...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Amit, I didnt know of this judgement. Anyone who has anything else to say about this case must say it now. It will definitely help. Kanchan - Original Message - From: Amit Bhatt misterbh...@gmail.com To: accessindia@accessindia.org.in Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 9:20 PM Subject: Re: [AI] Preparation tofilethepetitionagainsttheScribeGuidelines. Dear Akhilesh, It was a total mismanagement and misconduct shown by the examination Authority on 24th of July 2011. The chief Manager, mr. Sanjay Singh who was deputed at my Center, did even not allow those whose Scribe are under graduate. We all tried to make him understand but he was not ready to listen anything. when we asked him whether he can offer a job in SBI to the candidate who is under graduate? mr. Sanjay said no we won't because the candidate should be graduate as per the stipulated criteria. We knew what he would answer and this is exactly what he said! then we asked, when an under graduate cannot be offered job in your Bank, then how would you not consider the Scribe who is just appearing his graduation. The candidate or any person would not be called graduate unless he completes his graduate degree. Till the time he would be just known as a 12th pass student. When a Blind candidate wish to appear exam and demand to eliminate the rule of less than 60% then we are called cheater! When we try to make the people understand, then they say we are teaching them law!!! but I am surprised to see the logics and understanding of the senior officers like Mr. Sanjay Singh! . very Shame! Anyways, I am pasting the below observation of the Court defining the meaning of the one grade lower. Amita vs. Rajiv Yaduvanshi and Ors Filed Under: Section 31 Persons of the Disabilities Act, 1995 Appellant: Amita Respondent: Rajiv Yaduvanshi and Ors. Citation: C.W.P. No. 2067 of 2003 3099 of 2003 Decided on 30.5.2003 (Unreported) Court: In the High Court of Delhi Judges: B.C. Patel and A.K. Sikri Amita filed the present appeal against the order of the Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) of not allowing her to appear for the Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) entrance exam on grounds that her scribe was a B.A, second year student. Facts Amita was a visually impaired person who obtained her M.A., B.A. (Hons.) and B. Ed degrees. At the time of the case, she was pursuing her further studies in M.Ed. She applied for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) in response to an advertisement issued by the Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB). Keeping in mind the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act, certain posts were reserved for the visually handicapped persons. The DSSSB also issued instructions for the visually handicapped persons taking the examination. According to the instructions, a visually handicapped candidate had to arrange for his/her scribe (person who writes the exam for the visually handicapped persons) at his/her own cost. It was also mentioned in the instructions that the academic qualifications of the scribe should be one level below the minimum educational qualification required for the post. Amita made arrangements for her own scribe, a second year BA (Hons.) student. The examination commenced and Amita started answering questions through her scribe. However, after some time the officer-in charge came and took away the paper and the admit card on the ground that the scribe was a 2nd year student and could not be Amita's scribe. According to him, the Scribe should have been only XIIth pass and therefore she wasn't permitted to act as a scribe. Amita then filed the present petition. This petition was initially listed before the Single Judge of the High Court. However, Amita's lawyer made a submission before the Single Judge that the matter should be treated as public interest litigation as it was likely to affect a large number of blind students. The Single Judge accordingly referred the matter to a Higher Bench. In the meantime another writ petition was also filed in the nature of 'public interest litigation' raising identical issues. An additional person, Monica Sharma filed another petition that raised similar issues. In these circumstances, these petitions were heard together by the Higher Bench of the High Court. Arguments made on behalf
Re: [AI] Preparation tofilethepetitionagainsttheScribeGuidelines.....
Same instructions should be followed in every exam whether it is banks or DSSB ETC. If VI community is not get up now then results are very very serious regarding getting jobs in future. They are behaving like illiterate person, The factual position is because at present time No employer is ready to take VI persons. That is why they are behaving like this. Thanks HS Negi - Original Message - From: Amit Bhatt misterbh...@gmail.com To: accessindia@accessindia.org.in Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 9:20 PM Subject: Re: [AI] Preparation tofilethepetitionagainsttheScribeGuidelines. Dear Akhilesh, It was a total mismanagement and misconduct shown by the examination Authority on 24th of July 2011. The chief Manager, mr. Sanjay Singh who was deputed at my Center, did even not allow those whose Scribe are under graduate. We all tried to make him understand but he was not ready to listen anything. when we asked him whether he can offer a job in SBI to the candidate who is under graduate? mr. Sanjay said no we won't because the candidate should be graduate as per the stipulated criteria. We knew what he would answer and this is exactly what he said! then we asked, when an under graduate cannot be offered job in your Bank, then how would you not consider the Scribe who is just appearing his graduation. The candidate or any person would not be called graduate unless he completes his graduate degree. Till the time he would be just known as a 12th pass student. When a Blind candidate wish to appear exam and demand to eliminate the rule of less than 60% then we are called cheater! When we try to make the people understand, then they say we are teaching them law!!! but I am surprised to see the logics and understanding of the senior officers like Mr. Sanjay Singh! . very Shame! Anyways, I am pasting the below observation of the Court defining the meaning of the one grade lower. Amita vs. Rajiv Yaduvanshi and Ors Filed Under: Section 31 Persons of the Disabilities Act, 1995 Appellant: Amita Respondent: Rajiv Yaduvanshi and Ors. Citation: C.W.P. No. 2067 of 2003 3099 of 2003 Decided on 30.5.2003 (Unreported) Court: In the High Court of Delhi Judges: B.C. Patel and A.K. Sikri Amita filed the present appeal against the order of the Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) of not allowing her to appear for the Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) entrance exam on grounds that her scribe was a B.A, second year student. Facts Amita was a visually impaired person who obtained her M.A., B.A. (Hons.) and B. Ed degrees. At the time of the case, she was pursuing her further studies in M.Ed. She applied for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) in response to an advertisement issued by the Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB). Keeping in mind the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act, certain posts were reserved for the visually handicapped persons. The DSSSB also issued instructions for the visually handicapped persons taking the examination. According to the instructions, a visually handicapped candidate had to arrange for his/her scribe (person who writes the exam for the visually handicapped persons) at his/her own cost. It was also mentioned in the instructions that the academic qualifications of the scribe should be one level below the minimum educational qualification required for the post. Amita made arrangements for her own scribe, a second year BA (Hons.) student. The examination commenced and Amita started answering questions through her scribe. However, after some time the officer-in charge came and took away the paper and the admit card on the ground that the scribe was a 2nd year student and could not be Amita's scribe. According to him, the Scribe should have been only XIIth pass and therefore she wasn't permitted to act as a scribe. Amita then filed the present petition. This petition was initially listed before the Single Judge of the High Court. However, Amita's lawyer made a submission before the Single Judge that the matter should be treated as public interest litigation as it was likely to affect a large number of blind students. The Single Judge accordingly referred the matter to a Higher Bench. In the meantime another writ petition was also filed in the nature of 'public interest litigation' raising identical issues. An additional person, Monica Sharma filed another petition that raised similar issues. In these circumstances, these petitions were heard together by the Higher Bench of the High Court. Arguments made on behalf of Amita Amita's lawyer contended that the qualifications for the post were BA, B.Ed. while the qualification of the scribe which was that of a second year student of BA, was one level lower. According to the lawyer, the action of the DSSSB was completely unjustified. The lawyer also argued that such a provision for insisting that candidates bring their own scribes was in violation with the provisions of Section 31 of the Act
