IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANU SIVARAMAN, C.PRATHEEP KUMAR, JJ.
Shibli K – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
WA No.1435 of 2023
Decided on : 15-11-2023
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Section 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 – Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 320(1) - Examination - Persons with disabilities - No extra time was allotted - Grievances raised by him in writ petition is that no extra time was allotted to persons with disabilities in objective examination conducted by Kerala Public Service Commission – Purpose for which assistance of a scribe is given to a PwD candidate is to help them in understanding questions and to mark or write down answers as per directions of candidates. (Para 24)
Finding of the Court :
Conduct of fifth respondent in declining prayer of appellant to chose his own scribe and providing a scribe from panel prepared by them cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable - In order to ensure quality of scribe provided, in impugned judgment learned Single Judge has given a direction to 5th respondent to provide opportunity to candidates with visual disability above 40% to interact with scribe provided by Commission at least two days in advance - If, after such interaction, candidate finds scribe to be unsuitable, fifth respondent shall provide assistance of another scribe from panel of scribes prepared for that particular examination – Court is of considered view that scribe provided to candidates belonging to PwD candidates from a panel prepared by KPSC will serve requirements of RPwD Act – Court do not find any illegality or irregularity in impugned judgment of learned Single Judge so as to call for any interference.
Result: Writ appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
C.Pratheep Kumar, J.
This writ appeal has been preferred by the petitioner in the writ petition W.P.(C).No.3947 of 2021 against the judgment dated 25.07.2022 of the learned Single Judge. The appellant is a visually challenged person having 100% disability as declared by the Medical Board. In spite of the disabilities, he had acquired post graduation in MBA and M.Com in Business Operations, qualified NET (National Eligibility Test) with JRF in Management and Commerce Streams and pursuing Ph.D in Management and Commerce Streams. He had also published papers and book chapters. He has valuable industry experience as a Project Consultant and served as a Visiting faculty member at the esteemed MCA Department of Kannur University.
2. He had filed the writ petition in the light of the experience during the Kerala Administrative Examination (KAS), where he encountered some difficulties with the scribe provided to him. Two main grievances were raised by him in the writ petition; one is that no extra time was allotted to persons with disabilities (In short, PwD candidates) in objective examination conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC), for the post of Assistant Professor in Business Administration. The second grievance is that adequate assistance was not received from the scribe appointed, during the examination. During the pendency of the writ petition, the examination for the post of Assistant Professor was conducted on 6.4.2021 and as such, the writ petition became infructuous. Even then, the learned Single Judge proceeded to dispose of the writ petition on merits, as the decision on the point noted by the appellant will be of general benefit to PwD candidates. By that time, the KPSC has decided to give extra time for objective examination for candidates with visual disability and as such, that part of the grievance also no more exists. In the examination, the appellant was provided the service of a scribe from a panel prepared by the KPSC. The appellant is not satisfied with the assistance given by the scribe appointed by the KPSC and his demand is that a PwD candidate is to be given full freedom to bring his own scribe, for all competitive examinations.
3. After evaluating the rival contentions raised by both sides and discussing various decisions and the law on the point, the learned Single Judge had disposed of the writ petition holding that the fifth respondent (KPSC) shall provide opportunity to candidates with visual disability above 40% to interact with the scribe provided by the Commission at least two days in advance. If, after such interaction, the candidate finds the scribe to be unsuitable, the fifth respondent shall provide the assistance of another scribe from the panel of scribes prepared for the particular examination.
4. Dissatisfied with the above judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellant preferred this appeal raising various grounds. According to the appellant, in the light of the provisions in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (In short, RPwD Act), and various Circulars issued by the Government of India, PwD candidates are to be given discretion to bring his own scribe. Now the points that arise for consideration are the following :-
(ii) Whether the service of a scribe provided from a panel prepared by the KPSC to such candidates will serve the requirement of Rights of Persons With Disabilities Act, 2016?
5. Heard all the parties.
6. From the Preamble of RPwD Act, it can be seen that the Parliament enacted the above law mainly to give effect to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The above Convention adopted on 13.12.2006, lays down the following principles for empowerment of persons with disabilities :-
Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission & Ors. (2021 (5) SCC 370)
Denial of scribe facilities to visually impaired candidates violates statutory provisions and constitutional rights under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
The court established that the qualification of a scribe must be one step below the candidate's minimum educational requirement, adhering to the established educational framework.
The court affirmed that visually impaired candidates are entitled to choose their scribes without restrictive qualifications, emphasizing compliance with statutory guidelines.
The court established that all persons with disabilities are entitled to reasonable accommodations during examinations, ensuring no discrimination based on the nature of disability.
(1) For a person with disability, provision for facility of a scribe is in pursuance of statutory mandate to ensure that persons with disabilities are able to live a life of equality and dignity base....
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. Th....
The judgment emphasizes the statutory entitlements of Persons with Disabilities under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 and the need for reasonable accommodation for PwD candidates in ....
The duty of public institutions to provide proper treatment and facilities to persons with disabilities, as emphasized by the court.
The impugned actions of the respondent-RPSC were found to be arbitrary and without valid authority in law, leading to the imposition of a cost on the respondent-RPSC in accordance with the provisions....
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.