Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Right to Be Considered for Promotion, Not a Right to Promotion: Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Retrospective Promotion    |     Inherent Power of Courts Can Recall Admission of Insufficiently Stamped Documents: Supreme Court    |     Courts Cannot Substitute Their Opinion for Security Agencies in Threat Perception Assessments: J&K High Court Directs Reassessment of Political Leader's Threat Perception    |     Service Law | Violation of Natural Justice: Discharge Without Notice or Reason: Gauhati High Court Orders Reinstatement and Regularization of Circle Organizers    |     Jharkhand High Court Quashes Family Court Order, Reaffirms Jurisdiction Based on Minor’s Ordinary Residence in Delhi    |     Ex-Serviceman Status Ceases After First Employment in Government Job: Calcutta High Court Upholds SBI’s Cancellation of Ex-Serviceman's Appointment Over False Declaration of Employment    |     Maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur Applies When State Instrumentalities Are Directly Responsible: Delhi High Court Orders MCD to Pay ₹10 Lakhs Compensation for Death    |     Wilful Avoidance of Service Must Be Established Before Passing Ex Parte Order Under Section 126(2) CrPC: Patna High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Maintenance Order    |     MP High Court Imposes Rs. 10,000 Costs for Prolonging Litigation, Upholds Eviction of Petitioners from Father's Property    |     When Detention Unnecessary Despite Serious Allegations of Fraud Bail Should be Granted: Kerala HC    |     Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Relocation Alone Cannot Justify Transfer: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Move Case from Nellore to Delhi, Orders Fresh Probe    |     Punjab & Haryana HC Double Bench Upholds Protection for Married Partners in Live-In Relationships, Denies Same for Minors    |    

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.

 

Similar News