Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.27 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 3 in The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 [Entire Act]
Gaurav Ganesh Das Daga And Ors vs Maharashtra Public Service Commission ... on 2 March, 2022
"19. As an extension of the pedantic stand, Respondents also
contended that the matter is related to service with the Union of
India, and the Petition should be dismissed on the grounds of an
alternate remedy to approach the Central Administrative
Tribunal. The Respondents have relied on the decision of this
Court in the case of Gaurav Ganesh Das Daga v. Maharashtra
Public Services Commission in WP 2270 of 2021 dated 4 th
March 2022 following the decision in the case of L.Chandra
Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261. Even this argument
does not make any reference to the Act of 2016. The petitioner is
not only raising a dispute regarding services with the Union of
India but also seeking enforcement of the rights and obligations
under the Act of 2016. Furthermore, it is as far back as August
2023 that this Court entertained the Petition and directed that
one post be kept vacant. This order has not been challenged by
the Respondents-Authorities. The result is that the Petition has
remained pending after taking cognizance by this Court, and the
interim order has continued for almost six months. Even if the
Petition is to be dismissed for the petitioner to approach the
Central Administrative Tribunal, this Court may continue the
direction to keep the post vacant, and this position would not
enure to the benefit of either party. No decision is placed before
us by the Respondents-Authorities even in such a situation, the
Court should not exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. In the facts and circumstances of the case,
declining to exercise writ jurisdiction would result in failure of
justice and would defeat the spirit behind the Act of 2016."
Section 34 in The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 [Entire Act]
Vikash Kumar vs Union Public Service Commission on 11 February, 2021
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.
Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation vs U.O.I. & Anr on 26 March, 2014
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunanda Bhandare Foundation Vs.
Union of India & Anr. AIR 2014 SC 2869 observed that in the matter of
providing reliefs to those who are differently abled, the approach and
attitude of the executive must be liberal and relief oriented and not
obstructive or lethargic. The Disabilities Act, 2016 was a land mark
legislation which repealed the 1995 Act and brought Indian legislation on
disability in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities. A "barrier" is defined under Section 2(c) of the
Disabilities Act, which reads thus :-
L. Chandra Kumar vs Union Of India And Others on 18 March, 1997
"19. As an extension of the pedantic stand, Respondents also
contended that the matter is related to service with the Union of
India, and the Petition should be dismissed on the grounds of an
alternate remedy to approach the Central Administrative
Tribunal. The Respondents have relied on the decision of this
Court in the case of Gaurav Ganesh Das Daga v. Maharashtra
Public Services Commission in WP 2270 of 2021 dated 4 th
March 2022 following the decision in the case of L.Chandra
Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261. Even this argument
does not make any reference to the Act of 2016. The petitioner is
not only raising a dispute regarding services with the Union of
India but also seeking enforcement of the rights and obligations
under the Act of 2016. Furthermore, it is as far back as August
2023 that this Court entertained the Petition and directed that
one post be kept vacant. This order has not been challenged by
the Respondents-Authorities. The result is that the Petition has
remained pending after taking cognizance by this Court, and the
interim order has continued for almost six months. Even if the
Petition is to be dismissed for the petitioner to approach the
Central Administrative Tribunal, this Court may continue the
direction to keep the post vacant, and this position would not
enure to the benefit of either party. No decision is placed before
us by the Respondents-Authorities even in such a situation, the
Court should not exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. In the facts and circumstances of the case,
declining to exercise writ jurisdiction would result in failure of
justice and would defeat the spirit behind the Act of 2016."