S.RAVINDRA BHAT, R.V.EASWAR
Nishant. S. Diwan – Appellant
Versus
High Court of Delhi Through Registrar General – Respondent
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
1. In these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, a direction is sought to the Delhi High Court Establishment, through its Registrar General (hereafter called “the High Court Establishment”) to reserve 3% of the vacancies for the disabled persons, in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS) Examination-2013 and consequently reserve 3% of the posts of the total cadre strength of that Service (hereafter referred to as “DHJS”) and consider his case as well in the category of “disabled persons”. Consequently, direction to the High Court Establishment to grant extra 30 minutes to the petitioner for attempting the DHJS Examination, in respect of the direct recruitment quota is also sought.
2. The petitioner has been practicing as an advocate since 1998; he claims to be disabled in terms of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereafter referred to as the “Disabilities Act”). He suffers from what is termed as “FOLLOW UP CASE OF HYDROCEPHALUS WITH STUNT SURGERY WITH MYOSITIS OSSIFICANS HIP WITH ANKYLOSED HIP”. This condition, the petitioner says, is described as “locomotor disab
Ravi Kumar Arora v. Union of India (UOI) and Anr. reported as (111) 2004 DLT 126
Union of India (UOI) and Anr. v. National Federation of the Blind and Ors. 2013 (10) SCC 772
Govt. of India through Secretary and Anr. v. Ravi Prakash Gupta and Anr. 2010 (7) SCC 626
Roop Chand Adlakha and Ors. v. Delhi Development Authority and Ors.
State of Gujarat & Anr v Shri Ambica Mills Ltd., Ahmedabad & Anr. [(1974) 4 SCC 656]
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.