TIP Essential When Identity Based On Belated 'Alias' Claims; Conviction Can't Rest On Improved Witness Testimonies: Supreme Court Conviction Based On Flawed Identification Cannot Be Sustained In Law: Supreme Court Acquits Sri Lankan National In UAPA Case Penalty For Misdeclaration Of Power Capacity Is Strict Liability; No Need To Prove Intent Or 'Gaming': Supreme Court Authority To Appoint Includes Power To Dismiss; Visitor Can Terminate 'First Registrar' Under Transitional Provisions: Supreme Court State Cannot Use Delay Or Contractual Clauses To Deny Statutory Compensation For Land Acquisition: Supreme Court State As Model Employer Cannot Deny Regularization Benefits To Workers Due To Its Own Clerical Lapses: Supreme Court Section 106 Evidence Act | Husband’s Failure To Explain Wife’s Unnatural Death In Matrimonial Home Completes Chain Of Circumstances: Supreme Court Tender Condition For Out-Of-State Bidders To Submit EMD Via Demand Draft Not Mandatory If Clause Uses 'May': Supreme Court Affidavit Is Not 'Evidence' Under Section 3 Of Evidence Act Unless Court Orders Its Use Under Order XIX CPC: Supreme Court Exclusion Of Natural Heirs Not A 'Suspicious Circumstance' To Invalidate Will If Testator Provides Reason: Supreme Court 18-Year-Old Rendered 100% Disabled Entitled To Compensation For Loss Of Marriage Prospects And Dignity: Punjab & Haryana HC Right To Life Under Article 21 Prioritizes Preservation Of Mother's Life Over Reproductive Autonomy If Termination Poses Fatal Risk: J&K High Court Director’s Involvement In Company Affairs A Disputed Fact; High Court Cannot Conduct ‘Mini-Trial’ To Quash Section 138 NI Act Complaint: Punjab & Haryana HC Abuse Of Process: Bombay High Court Quashes FIRs Against Lawyer & Ex-Police Chief Sanjay Pandey; Says Complaints Motivated By Vengeance Magistrate Not Bound To Order FIR In Every Case Under Section 175(3) BNSS If Complainant Possesses All Evidence: Allahabad High Court High Court Can Initiate Suo Motu Inquiry Against Judicial Officers Based On Information; Sworn Affidavit Not Mandatory: Gujarat High Court Lack Of Videography, Independent Witnesses During Contraband Seizure Relevant Factors For Granting Bail Under NDPS Act: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court Raps Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan for Violating Rights of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Persons under RPwD Act

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin

Delhi High Court Raps Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan for Violating Rights of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Persons under RPwD ActIn a scathing judgment, the Delhi High Court has rebuked the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) for its failure to uphold the rights of Persons with Disabilities (PwDs), especially those who are deaf and hard of hearing. The court observed that KVS violated statutory provisions under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) while issuing job advertisements.

Key points:

Ignoring Statutory Provisions: The court pointed out that KVS had ignored Sections 2(f), 17, and 34 of the RPwD Act, which mandate a 4% reservation for PwDs, including 1% reserved specifically for deaf and hard of hearing persons.

Outdated Notification: KVS relied on an outdated notification from 2013 for reservation calculations, neglecting the operative notification from 2021. As a result, certain posts did not provide the required reservation for deaf and hard of hearing persons.

Recruitment Process Concerns: While the court expressed concerns about the discontinuation of services for selected candidates if the advertisements were quashed, it directed KVS to provide 1% reservation for deaf and hard of hearing persons against total vacancies and initiate a special recruitment drive to fill the reserved vacancies.

Emphasis on Reasonable Accommodation: The judgment emphasized the legislative vision of providing reasonable accommodation to PwDs and criticized KVS for viewing them from a lens of inconvenience rather than facilitating their rights under the RPwD Act.

Reference to Judicial Precedent: The court referred to a recent judgment directing KVS to provide 1% reservation to blind and low vision persons, issuing a similar directive in the present case to clear the backlog of vacancies for deaf and hard of hearing persons within a stipulated timeframe.

Appointment Directive: Specific posts like Principal, Vice-Principal, Post Graduate Teacher (PGT), etc., were identified in the notification from 2021 for reservation. The court directed KVS to appoint deaf and hard of hearing persons on these identified posts in accordance with the statutory provisions of the RPwD Act.

This judgment serves as a stern reminder to government organizations to uphold the rights of PwDs and ensure compliance with the RPwD Act. It also reflects the judiciary’s commitment to promoting inclusivity and equal opportunities for all citizens.

This landmark judgment underscores the importance of adherence to disability rights legislation and calls for immediate corrective action by KVS to rectify its violations.

Date of Decision: 01 November 2023

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTIO VS KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/01_Nov_23_Court_Own_Motion-Vs-KV_Sanghtha-Del.pdf"]

Latest Legal News

  • by sayum
    22 May 2026 9:27 AM
Director’s Involvement In Company Affairs A Disputed Fact; High Court Cannot Conduct ‘Mini-Trial’ To Quash Section 138 NI Act Complaint: Punjab & Haryana HC
  • by sayum
    22 May 2026 9:27 AM
Right To Life Under Article 21 Prioritizes Preservation Of Mother's Life Over Reproductive Autonomy If Termination Poses Fatal Risk: J&K High Court
  • by sayum
    22 May 2026 9:27 AM
18-Year-Old Rendered 100% Disabled Entitled To Compensation For Loss Of Marriage Prospects And Dignity: Punjab & Haryana HC
  • by sayum
    22 May 2026 8:32 AM
Lack Of Videography, Independent Witnesses During Contraband Seizure Relevant Factors For Granting Bail Under NDPS Act: Delhi High Court
  • by sayum
    22 May 2026 8:32 AM
High Court Can Initiate Suo Motu Inquiry Against Judicial Officers Based On Information; Sworn Affidavit Not Mandatory: Gujarat High Court
  • by sayum
    22 May 2026 8:31 AM
Magistrate Not Bound To Order FIR In Every Case Under Section 175(3) BNSS If Complainant Possesses All Evidence: Allahabad High Court