Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.22 seconds)
Anjeel Kumar vs State Of J&K on 9 March, 2015 cites

Govt Of India Th:Secy & Anr vs Ravi Prakash Gupta & Anr on 7 July, 2010

The State completely lost sight of its commitment both under its own policy decision as also the statutory provision. Again Hon?ble the Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2010) 7 SCC 626, (Government of India and another v. Ravi Prakash Gupta and another). In paragraph nos. 24 and 25 it is held thus:- 24. The other question which is connected with the first question and which also requires our consideration is whether the reservation provided for in Section 33 of the Disabilities Act, 1995, was dependent on identification of posts suitable for appointment in such categories, as has been sought to be contended on behalf of the Government of India in the instant case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 115 - A Kabir - Full Document

Union Of India & Anr vs National Federation Of The Blind & Ors on 8 October, 2013

25. Although, the Delhi High Court has dealt with the aforesaid questions, we wish to add a few observations of our own in regard to the objects which the legislature intended to achieve by enacting the aforesaid Act. The submission made on behalf of the Union of India regarding the implementation of the provisions of Section 33 of the Disabilities Act, 1995, only after identification of posts suitable for such appointment, under Section 32 thereof, runs counter to the legislative intent with which the Act was enacted. To accept such a submission would amount to accepting a situation where the provisions of Section 33 of the aforesaid Act could be kept deferred indefinitely by bureaucratic inaction. Such a stand taken by the petitioners before the High Court was rightly rejected. Accordingly, the submission made on behalf of the Union of India that identification of Group A and B posts in the IAS was undertaken after the year 2005 is not of much substance. In the said case the plea of non-identification of posts raised by the Union of India was not accepted and a direction was issued to select the person for IAS if he was otherwise qualified under the physically disabled quota. Again in the decision reported in (2013) 10 SCC, 772 (Union of India and anr v. National Federation of the Blind and others), Hon?ble the Supreme Court considered a similar issue and in paragraph 24 held thus:- 24. Although, the Disability Rights Movement in India commenced way back in 1977, of which Respondent No. 1 herein was an active participant, it acquired the requisite sanction only at the launch of the Asian and Pacific Decade of Disabled Persons in 1993-2002, which gave a definite boost to the movement. The main need that emerged from the meet was for a comprehensive legislation to protect the rights of persons with disabilities. In this light, the crucial legislation was enacted in 1995 viz., the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 which empowers persons with disabilities and ensures protection of their rights. The Act, in addition to its other prospects, also seeks for better employment opportunities to persons with disabilities by way of reservation of posts and establishment of a Special Employment Exchange for them. For the same, Section 32 of the Act stipulates for identification of posts which can be reserved for persons with 21Page 22 disabilities. Section 33 provides for reservation of posts and Section 36 thereof provides that in case a vacancy is not filled up due to non-availability of a suitable person with disability, in any recruitment year such vacancy is to be carried forward in the succeeding recruitment year. The difference of opinion between the appellants and the respondents arises on the point of interpretation of these sections.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 287 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Mahesh Gupta & Ors vs Yashwant Kumar Ahirwar & Ors on 30 August, 2007

In (2007) 8 SCC 621 (Mahesh Gupta and others v. Yashwant Kumar Ahirwar and ors) in paragraph 14 Hon?ble the Supreme Court held thus:-  when the decision was taken, the Persons with Disabilities ( Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 ( for short  the 19895 Act) had come into force. In terms of the 1995 Act, the States were obligated to make reservations for handicapped persons.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 43 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Jyotsna Mengi vs Chairman, Psc And Ors. on 11 July, 2006

5. The writ petition was opposed by the Selection Board, stating that the total vacancies for physically handicapped persons came to 10 and in terms of the advertisement the candidates suffering from disability of partially deaf alone were eligible for the posts. As the appellants did not conform to the nature of disability in terms of the Government order issued in Order No. 62-SW of 2001 dated 13.03.2001, they were not found eligible for selection in the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade-II, although four other candidates were found eligible in the said category. Merely because the appellants applied and participated in the interview that will not confer any right to seek their selection and appointment and the vacancies under the said category could not be filled up for want of eligible candidates. It is also contended that a Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in 2009 (2) JKJ 48 (HC), (Jyotsna Mengi v. Chairman, J&K PSC and others) directed the Government to identify the posts for all the three categories for filling up the vacancies under the physically challenged quota and the Government issued Order No. 231-SW of 2011 dated 22.12.2011 identified the posts and the said identification having been made after the advertisement was issued i.e. on 24.12.2010, the appellants? category of disability cannot be included in the reserved category (physically challenged) in the advertisement and the Government order issued on 22.12.2011 will apply only prospectively. The learned Single Judge accepted the said stand of the Selection Board and dismissed the writ petition.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1