Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.25 seconds)Amita vs Union Of India & Anr on 11 August, 2005
The observations of the Supreme Court in Amita vs. Union of India are to the effect that when the petitioner fulfilled all the conditions mentioned in the advertisement for the post, she could not be denied equality of opportunity guaranteed by Article 16 (1). The mere fact of the disability, which was not mentioned in the advertisement and which according to the writ petitioner was not impediment for the post, could not be a ground to hold petitioners to write the examination.
National Federation Of Blind vs Union Public Service Commission And ... on 23 March, 1993
In Govt. of India vs. Ravi Prakash Gupta & anr (2010) 7 SCC 626 the Supreme Court, considering a matter in which Shri Ravi Prakash Gupta-the respondent is a visually handicapped person suffering with 100% blindness and selected in the civil services examinations conducted by the Union Public Service Commission in 2006 was denied appointment, it was held quoting from the National Federation of Blind vs. Union Public Service Commission & ors (1993) 2 SCC 411 that the PWD Act provides for integration of persons with disabilities into the social main stream and to lay down a strategy for comprehensive opportunities for persons with disabilities and for their education, training, employment and rehabilitation amongst other responsibilities. Once it was found that the respondent no. 1 was eligible for appointment in civil services after declared successful, and placed at serial No. 5 in the displaced category of visually impaired candidates, he could not be denied with the appointment. The failure of the Union of India to identify pots of persons falling within the ambit of Section 33 of the Disabilities Act, 1995 should not have deprived the benefit of selections on the ground that there was no available vacancy in the said categories. It was held that the reservation provided under Section 33 of the PWD Act was not dependent upon identification of posts suitable for appointment in such categories. The statutory reservation in pursuance to the enabling provisions in the PWD Act cannot be deferred indefinitely for bureaucratic action. The Supreme Court held that the identification of posts is a ministerial job and that the statutory reservations should not await the ministerial actions.
Section 33 in The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 [Entire Act]
The Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection Of Rights And Full Participation) Act, 1995
Govt Of India Th:Secy & Anr vs Ravi Prakash Gupta & Anr on 7 July, 2010
In Govt. of India vs. Ravi Prakash Gupta & anr (2010) 7 SCC 626 the Supreme Court, considering a matter in which Shri Ravi Prakash Gupta-the respondent is a visually handicapped person suffering with 100% blindness and selected in the civil services examinations conducted by the Union Public Service Commission in 2006 was denied appointment, it was held quoting from the National Federation of Blind vs. Union Public Service Commission & ors (1993) 2 SCC 411 that the PWD Act provides for integration of persons with disabilities into the social main stream and to lay down a strategy for comprehensive opportunities for persons with disabilities and for their education, training, employment and rehabilitation amongst other responsibilities. Once it was found that the respondent no. 1 was eligible for appointment in civil services after declared successful, and placed at serial No. 5 in the displaced category of visually impaired candidates, he could not be denied with the appointment. The failure of the Union of India to identify pots of persons falling within the ambit of Section 33 of the Disabilities Act, 1995 should not have deprived the benefit of selections on the ground that there was no available vacancy in the said categories. It was held that the reservation provided under Section 33 of the PWD Act was not dependent upon identification of posts suitable for appointment in such categories. The statutory reservation in pursuance to the enabling provisions in the PWD Act cannot be deferred indefinitely for bureaucratic action. The Supreme Court held that the identification of posts is a ministerial job and that the statutory reservations should not await the ministerial actions.
Syed Bashir-Ud-Din Qadri vs Nazir Ahmed Shah & Ors on 10 March, 2010
In Syed Bashir-Ud-Din Qadri vs. Nazir Ahmed Shah and others (2010) 3 SCC 603 the Supreme Court, considering a matter in which the services of the petitioner as a teacher were terminated on account of his suffering with cerebral palsy which made him difficult to write on the black board, held the decision to be violative of Jammu and Kashmir Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1998. It was held that accepting the fact, that the appellant is a victim of cerebral palsy, which impairs movement of limbs and also speech, there is nothing on record to show that the appellant had not been performing his duties efficiently and with dedication. On the other hand, his performance as a teacher was reflected in exceptionally good results that he achieved in his discipline in the classes taught by him. Mere fact, that the appellant could not express himself properly when he personally appeared before the High Court has to be seen in the context that his speech faculty must have worsened further on account of nervousness which he might have experienced while answering questions before the High Court. Intimidating atmosphere in the High Court must have triggered a reaction which made it difficult for him to respond to questions put to him. The Committee constituted to assess his performance as a teacher notwithstanding his disability had formed a favourable impression about him.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Shikha Malhotra vs State Bank Of India And Anr. on 6 December, 2007
In Shikha Malhotra vs. State Bank of India and another (CWP No. 17024 of 2006) dated 6.12.2007 Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Mohinder Pal of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the selections in pursuance to Advertisement No. CRPD/PO/2005/03 for 509 Probationary Officers in the State Bank of India, considering a similar case in which the petitioner did not have vision in the right eye and was found medically unfit for appointment.
1