Electricity Act 2003 | Section 56(2) Does Not Preclude Licensee From Raising Supplementary Demand After Two Years; Only Restricts Right To Disconnect: Supreme Court Dissolution Of Partnership At Will | Outgoing Partner Entitled To Market Value Of Assets As On Date Of Distribution, Not Date Of Dissolution: Supreme Court SEBI | Release Of Escrow Under Buyback Regulations Does Not Preclude Independent Inquiry Into Fraud Under PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Promotion Based On Merit Does Not Wipe Out Past Adverse Records But Must Be Balanced In FR 56(j) Compulsory Retirement: Supreme Court Appellate Court Can Convict For Offence Even If Charge Not Framed By Trial Court Under Section 464 CrPC: Supreme Court Extradition | Sovereign Assurance Does Not Override Judicial Sentencing; Cannot Be Used To Artificially Accelerate Sentence Completion: Supreme Court Article 21 | State Has A Positive Duty To Protect Public Health By Implementing Front-Of-Package Labelling Regulations: Supreme Court Revenue Entries Are Not Documents Of Title, Cannot Replace Substantive Evidence In Property Disputes: Supreme Court Long Possession Without Hostile Animus Does Not Amount To Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Administrative Discretion Must Comply With Article 14; Subsequent Executive Decisions Cannot Retroactively Cure Failure Of Timely Performance: Supreme Court Municipal Corporation Cannot Unilaterally Downgrade Market Value Of Land Acquired For Road Widening To Deny TDR Certificates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Execution Of Agreement To Sell Does Not Automatically Terminate Existing Tenancy: Allahabad High Court Writ Jurisdiction Not Maintainable When Title To Property Is Under A Cloud And Subject Matter Of Disputed Facts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Amendment Of Plaint Seeking Impleadment Of Third Parties And Addition Of Time-Barred Claims In A Partition Suit Cannot Be Permitted: Bombay High Court Reassessment Order Does Not Result In Merger Of Original Assessment Order If Issues Are Distinct: Andhra Pradesh High Court GST Assessment Order Uploaded Only Under 'Additional Notices' Tab Without Separate Intimation Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Calcutta High Court 'Prolonged Inaction' Cannot Be Rewarded: Delhi High Court Upholds CESTAT Refusal To Condone 968-Day Delay In Filing Customs Appeal Probate No Longer Mandatory To Establish Rights Under A Will Following 2025 Amendment To Indian Succession Act: J&K High Court Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used To Introduce New Factual Foundations Or Reopen Concluded Arbitral Awards: Karnataka High Court High Court Cannot Invoke Article 227 To Strike Off Plaint When Statutory Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Is Available: Madras High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Arrest And Subsequent Remand: Orissa High Court Arbitrator Is The Sole Judge Of Quality And Quantity Of Evidence, Court Cannot Act As Court Of Appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 5 Limitation Act | Court Cannot Condone Delay In A Mechanical Manner Without Ascertaining Bona Fides Of The Applicant: Calcutta High Court High Court Cannot Quash FIR Under Section 482 CrPC By Conducting Mini-Trial On Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court Taxation Law | Mere Assertion Of Natural Justice Violation On Disputed Facts Won't Bypass Statutory Appeal: Delhi High Court

40% Locomotor Disability Certificate Not a Precondition for Scribe in Exams: Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court today upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal's decision allowing a candidate with Dysgraphia, Vikash Kumar, to use a scribe in the Combined Medical Service Examination (CMSE) 2017 without the need for a disability certificate specifying 40% or more locomotor disability.

The High Court, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, dismissed a writ petition filed by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) challenging the Tribunal's order. The Court observed, "Merely because the respondent No.1 has been provided the scribe, it cannot be construed that he had applied under the PWD category." This pivotal observation underscored the Court's recognition of the unique challenges faced by individuals with Dysgraphia.

Respondent No.1, Vikash Kumar, had applied for the CMSE 2017 as a person with disability (PWD) from the OBC category, utilizing a scribe due to his condition of Dysgraphia. The Tribunal had earlier allowed his application, leading to the UPSC's challenge.

The High Court noted that Dysgraphia was not recognized in the CMSE application form at the time, compelling Kumar to apply under the PWD category. The Court agreed with the Tribunal's conclusion, stating, "The respondent No.1 was constrained to say so because as a matter of fact he never intended to apply under the said category, as Dysgraphia as a disability was notified only a few days before the advertisement was issued by the petitioner."

Further, the Court acknowledged Kumar's merit in the OBC category, where his score was higher than several other candidates. Emphasizing this, the Court held, "The respondent No.1 having secured 326 marks in the OBC category, which marks are higher in the merit than several other OBC candidates, we are of the view that the Tribunal has rightly granted the relief in the manner it did in the impugned order."

This judgment is seen as a significant step towards recognizing the varied needs of individuals with different disabilities and ensuring equitable access to examination facilities. The decision also reaffirms the legal principle that the absence of a specific disability certificate should not bar a candidate from accessing necessary accommodations, like a scribe, during examinations.

Date of Decision: 11 December, 2023

UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION  VS VIKASH KUMAR & ORS.

 

Latest Legal News