Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras 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