Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K 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