UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana 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