Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 86 (2.69 seconds)
Documents citing Vikash Kumar vs Union Public Service Commission on 11 February, 2021

Ch. Joseph vs The Telangana State Road Transport ... on 1 August, 2025

24. The significant impact of Vikash Kumar (supra) is that the case dealt with a person with a chronic neurological condition resulting in Writer’s Cramp, experiencing extreme difficulty in writing. He was denied a scribe for the civil services exam by the UPSC, because he did not come within the definition of person with benchmark disability (40% or more of a specified disability). This court, rejected this stand, and held him to be a person with disability. It was also stated that the provision of scribe to him fell within the scope of reasonable accommodation. The Court said:
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - A Kumar - Full Document

Ashwin Murli vs Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd & Ors on 1 September, 2025

41. The spirit of the RPwD Act, 2016 would reveal that the principle of reasonable accommodation is a concept that not only relates to affording equal opportunity to the PwD but also it goes further as to ensuring the dignity of the individual by driving home the message that the assessment of a person‟s suitability, capacity and capability is not to be tested and measured by medical or clinical assessment of the same but must be assessed after providing reasonable accommodation and an enabling atmosphere. The judgement of this Court in Vikash Kumar (supra) assumes increased significance in this regard. This Court in this case has expounded in detail the principle of reasonable accommodation by invoking the social model of disability. In Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Date:01.09.2025 LPA 754/2023 Page 29 of 37 18:43:35 response to the judgement, the Department of Disability Affairs, Government of India has notified guidelines for availing of scribes by all persons with specified disabilities to appear in written examinations thereby widening the ambit of its earlier guidelines issued in 2018 confining this privilege only to persons with benchmark disabilities.
Delhi High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - N Chawla - Full Document

Jammula Nandasai Mithra vs The State Of Ap on 4 April, 2025

issued by the Ministry of Social justice and Empowerment (Department of Empowerment of persons with Disabilities (Divyangan) vide Office Memorandum Dated 29.08.2018 as illegal, unjust, unfair, arbitrary, and in violation of the Fundamental Rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India besides being in violation of the provisions enshrined in the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and consequently set aside the impugned Memo No.1102/EIC/MBBS/2024 dated 16-01-2025 issued by the respondent no.3 duly directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to attend the II year MBBBS examinations and all other upcoming examinations till the completion of the course with a grant of additional compensatory time of 30 minutes in accordance with "Guidelines for conducting written 3 examination for persons with benchmark disabilities" issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (Department of Empowerment of persons with Disabilities (Divyangan) vide Office Memorandum Dated 29.08.2018. As per Section 2(y) of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in Vikash Kumar Vs. Union Public Service Commission and Ors, MANU/SC/0067/2021 and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case".
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shabana Rashid Pinjari vs Maharashtra Public Service Commission ... on 11 September, 2025

In para 52 of the Vikash Kumar (supra) the principle of reasonable accommodation captures the positive obligation of the State and private parties to provide additional support to persons with disabilities to facilitate their full and effective participation in society. The concept of reasonable accommodation will not be meaningful if the persons with disabilities are not given additional support that helps to make their rights meaningful. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights to equality, the six freedoms and the right to life under Article 21 will ring hollow if persons with disabilities are not given this additional support that helps make these rights.
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - M S Karnik - Full Document

Avni Prakash vs National Testing Agency (Nta) on 23 November, 2021

In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and in view of the fact that the petitioner has already appeared in the said test without raising any objection by the respondent no.2, we direct the respondent no.1 to take appropriate decision on the application of the petitioner for re- appearing in the said test keeping in mind the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Vikash Kumar vs. Union Public Services Commission & Others, (2021) 5 SCC 370 i.e. of reasonable accommodation by making adjustments to enable disabled person to effectively counter the barriers posed by disability person and sympathetically. Learned counsel for the petitioner agrees to produce the certificate from one of the agency prescribed in the said Information Bulletin at Appendix VIII-B within one week from today. The respondent no.1 shall consider the certificate obtained by the petitioner from one of the agency prescribed Appendix VIII-B within one week from the date of the petitioner producing such certificate and shall communicate the decision that would be taken by the respondent no.1 to the petitioner within two days the date of taking a decision. It is made clear that this order shall not be used as a precedent in any other matter.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 10 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

Arnab Roy vs Consortium Of National Law ... on 17 March, 2023

24 In a situation such as the present, the Court must have due regard, undoubtedly to the need for reasonable accommodation consistent with the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, as interpreted in the decision in Vikash Kumar (supra). Equally, it would not be appropriate to ignore the genuine concerns which have been set up on behalf of the Consortium bearing on the need to maintain the integrity of the entrance test. 25 It is from this perspective that the consortium has, in its guidelines required that the candidate should not be above the 11 th standard and in addition should not be affiliated with any test-preparatory or examination coaching centre. At the highest, a candidate could have a grievance if no such scribe meeting the said description is available. But as already noted above, the Consortium has taken upon itself the obligation to provide a scribe who meets with the stipulations which are contained in the Guidelines.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Datla Srujan Bhupati Varma vs The State Of Ap on 6 October, 2025

No.1102/EIC/MBBS/2025, dated 25.08.2025 in terms of Section 2(y) of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vikash Kumar Vs. Union Public Service Commission and Ors, MANU/SC/0067/2021dulygranting an extra attempt to appear in the MBBS I year supplementary examinations scheduled from 16.09.2025 with a grant of additional compensatory time of 30 minutes pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - K S Reddy - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next