Back
ASHISH SHROTI
Vaishali Chaturvedi – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
ORDER
1. The issue raised by the petitioner in this petition is a complex but an interesting one relating to interpretation of section 34(2) of Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred as “Act of 2016”).
2. The respondent No.2, Employees Selection Board (earlier known as Professional Examination Board) issued Joint Examination Advertisement-2023 for recruitment for various posts which also included 8 backlog posts (direct recruitment) of Shorthand Typists (Group III) reserved for physically handicapped candidates of Un-reserved (UR) category for respondent No.3 Department. The posts are identified in advertisement as Post Code-022. The advertisement also clarifies that out of 8 posts, 2 posts are identified for Visually Handicap (VH), 4 posts are identified for Locomotor Disability (LD) and 2 posts are identified for Multiple Disability (MD) category.
3. The posts for as many as 135 departments were advertised including aforesaid 8 backlog posts for respondent no.3 department. The examination was conducted by Board in accordance with provisions of M.P. Junior Service (Joint Qualifying) Examination Rules, 2013, (in short Rules of 2013). As per the said Rules
Vacancies for persons with disabilities must be filled following statutory procedures defined in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, ensuring compliance with initial advertisement criteria a....
The Court emphasized that physically disabled individuals constitute a unique category entitled to equal treatment without further classification such as caste or religion, mandating adherence to mer....
“Recruitment Year” cannot be a “Selection Year” as defined under the KS&SSR and can only be construed to be the year in which vacancies are available and in which recruitment is attempted.
The proviso to Rule 22 (2)(e) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1996, carves out an exception to the general rule, allowing for the appointment of a qualified male candidate with the ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the failure of the Union of India to implement the provisions of the PWD Act, 1995, and the court's invocation of Article 142 of the Constitution o....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
