IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal principle established in the judgment is the obligation to provide reasonable accommodation to disabled individuals, as mandated by the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The court emphasized the concept of reasonable accommodation and substantive equality, holding that the guidelines in the Office Memorandum dated 29.08.2018 should be strictly followed to ensure equal opportunity for disabled candidates.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Siddharth Kheskani on behalf of the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Sahil Trivedi on behalf of the respondent – State.

2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP waives service of Rule for respondent State.

2.1. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Kheskani tenders a draft amendment. The same is granted. To be carried out by 26.03.2024.

2.2. The present petition had been moved by the petitioners on 20.03.2024 and whereas intermittently the present petition has been heard on 21.03.2024 and it had been heard today also. Considering the urgency raised in the petition, more particularly since it was felt that issuance of notice to the Union of India would have resulted in the petition itself being rendered infructuous, this Court had deemed it appropriate to hear and decide the petition without any reference to the respondent nos.3 and 4 more particularly since the petitioners were aggrieved by a decision of the respondent no.2.

3. The present petition has been moved by petitioner nos.1 and 2 – Organization along with petitioner nos.3 to 15 who are applicants who had applied for selection to the post of Gujarat Sub-ordinate Services Class-III (Group-A and Group-B) advertised by the respondent no.2 vide advertisement dated 03.01.2024. The advertisement inter alia prescribes educational qualification required for candidates being of having a recognized graduation degree.

3.1. The petitioners seek to challenge a public notice dated 19.03.2024 issued by the respondent no.2 whereby it was inter alia laid down that the instructions published by respondent no.2 on 16.03.2024 at paragraph no.3 (4) pertaining to a scribe given to a physically impaired candidate which was that a scribe should not be having educational qualifications beyond 8 standard was modified to the extent that the scribe could be having educational qualification of studying in 9th standard and could also have completed 9th standard, but, could not be having qualifications beyond 9th standard and whereas the age of the scribe which was prescribed being upto 16 years, was increased to being upto 18 years.

3.2. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners no.3 to 15 who are all physically impaired candidates/ persons with disabilities would be required to appear in a computer based examination being conducted by the respondent no.2 where originally the respondents had fixed a criteria that a scribe who would assist the persons with disability in writing the examination should be having the maximum qualification of studying in the 8th standard and not aged above 16 years whereas, vide the impugned notice, it has been modified to the education qualification of the scribe being 9th standard completed or studying in 9th standard and aged upto 18 years.

4. Learned advocate Mr.Kheskani on behalf of the petitioners would submit that the decision of the respondents of prescribing the educational qualification of the scribe being 9th standard or less is contrary to the policy of the central government vide Office Memorandum dated 29.08.2018 more particularly the same having been adopted by the State vide a communication dated 24.06.2019 by the Social Welfare and Empowerment Department which had directed all the departments of the State to strictly adhere to the terms and conditions of the said Office Memorandum of the central government.

4.1. Learned advocate would submit that as per Clause- 5 of the Office Memorandum dated 29.08.2018, services of a scribe could be availed either by opting for a scribe from the panel scribes prepared by the examining body or the candidate opting for his own scribe. It is submitted by learned advocate that while the respondent no.2 did not have a panel of scribes and whereas the respondents are attempting to restrict the petitioners and such other similarly situated persons from getting a scribe of their own choice, by prescribing restrictions beyond the Office Memorandum dated 29