Privileges in Examinations

Dhawal S Chotai vs. Union of India & Ors

Filed under: Section 27 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995
Petitioner: Dhawal S Chotai
Respondents: Union of India & Ors.
Citation: AIR 2003 Bombay 316
Court: In the Supreme Court
Judges: HL Gokhale & DG Deshpande

This petition was filed seeking courts intervention to direct the Institute to impart three extra hours to Dhawal S. Chotai to write his papers due to an affliction from "cerebral palsy"

Facts

Dhawal S Chotai suffered from "Cerebral Palsy", a disorder of movement and posture. This disability also affects the normal functioning of bones, muscles, joints and communication skills. He was a commerce graduate and wanted to study further by taking the Chartered Accountants examination.

Because of his disability, he had requested the institution for three extra hours to write the exam. The University of Bombay had given him the extra three hours time on his request, when he was giving his B.Com exams. The petitioner made a plea to the Supreme Court to direct the Institute to grant him three hours extra time.

Arguments made on behalf of the institution conducting the examination

In the given situation, at most one hour could be granted and such decisions are taken on the basis of earlier resolutions. The institution being a statutory body, any further relaxation beyond the earlier decisions could not be accepted.

Arguments made on behalf of Dhawal

On behalf of Dhawal, attention was drawn towards the nature of his disability and ensuing problems. Further, it was contended that he would like to write the exam himself since a subject like accountancy required meticulous comprehension and an engagement at the individual level. An obvious requirement in such circumstances was extra time due to the discrepancies emerging from his disability.

Observations by the Court

The Court observed that the Persons with Disabilities Act made provisions, which were principally for, appropriate opportunities in the matter of employment. Chapter V of the Act made beneficial provisions in the matter of education. The overall tenor of the Chapter was to make all necessary facilities available to the persons with disabilities in the matter of education.

The institution was a statutory authority and would therefore be bound by Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which provides for right to life, which means right to have a decent life. The right to receive education and facilities are integral to the sensibility of decent existence.

The institution being a statutory body ought to give him similar facility to write the examination for three more hours. The Court held that Dhawal ought to be permitted to write the papers for three hours over and above the normal period. The Court directed the institution to permit him the extra time and to be co-operative with him.

Sections Referred:

  • Section 27 of the Persons with Disability Act, 1995

Top

Amita vs. Rajiv Yaduvanshi and Ors

Filed Under: Section 31 Persons of the Disabilities Act, 1995
Appellant: Amita
Respondent: Rajiv Yaduvanshi and Ors.
Citation: C.W.P. No. 2067 of 2003 & 3099 of 2003 Decided on 30.5.2003 (Unreported)
Court: In the High Court of Delhi
Judges: B.C. Patel and A.K. Sikri

Amita filed the present appeal against the order of the Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) of not allowing her to appear for the Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) entrance exam on grounds that her scribe was a B.A, second year student.

Facts

Amita was a visually impaired person who obtained her M.A., B.A. (Hons.) and B. Ed degrees. At the time of the case, she was pursuing her further studies in M.Ed. She applied for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) in response to an advertisement issued by the Delhi

Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB). Keeping in mind the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act, certain posts were reserved for the visually handicapped persons. The DSSSB also issued instructions for the visually handicapped persons taking the examination.

According to the instructions, a visually handicapped candidate had to arrange for his/her scribe (person who writes the exam for the visually handicapped persons) at his/her own cost. It was also mentioned in the instructions that the academic qualifications of the scribe should be one level below the minimum educational qualification required for the post.

Amita made arrangements for her own scribe, a second year BA (Hons.) student. The examination commenced and Amita started answering questions through her scribe.

However, after some time the officer-in charge came and took away the paper and the admit card on the ground that the scribe was a 2nd year student and could not be Amita's scribe. According to him, the Scribe should have been only XIIth pass and therefore she wasn't permitted to act as a scribe.

Amita then filed the present petition. This petition was initially listed before the Single Judge of the High Court. However, Amita's lawyer made a submission before the Single Judge that the matter should be treated as public interest litigation as it was likely to affect a large number of blind students. The Single Judge accordingly referred the matter to a Higher Bench.

In the meantime another writ petition was also filed in the nature of 'public interest litigation' raising identical issues. An additional person, Monica Sharma filed another petition that raised similar issues. In these circumstances, these petitions were heard together by the Higher Bench of the High Court.

Arguments made on behalf of Amita

Amita's lawyer contended that the qualifications for the post were BA, B.Ed. while the qualification of the scribe which was that of a second year student of BA, was one level lower. According to the lawyer, the action of the DSSSB was completely unjustified.

The lawyer also argued that such a provision for insisting that candidates bring their own scribes was in violation with the provisions of Section 31 of the Act and it was the duty of DSSB to provide a scribe for Amita.

Arguments made on behalf of DSSSB

On the other hand, the DSSSB's lawyer argued that there were no instructions issued by the Government on the subject of arrangement of a scribe. In such circumstances, it was contended that DSSB had formulated its own guidelines. According to him, the purpose of the exam was such that the scribe should not have been in a higher grade than XIIth. Therefore, the action of the DSSSB was valid.

Observations of the Court

The Court examined the instructions issued by the DSSSB and also the meaning of the term "one level below". According to the Court, the scribe had not even completed her graduation and was not a B.Ed.

Accordingly, her qualifications were in congruence with the guidelines laid down by the DSSSB in their instructions. The writ petition was accordingly allowed and the Court directed that a fresh exam should be held for Amita. It was also stated that the results of the TGT exam that had already taken place should not be declared.

The Court also stated that after Amita had taken the exam, the consolidated result should be declared within a period of one month and after taking the results of both these exams, the DSSSB could go ahead with the selection process.

With respect to Monica's case, it was stated that the timing of the examination was 10:30 a.m. but she arrived at the center at 11:15 a.m. and because of that she was not allowed to enter the examination center.

The Court held that in light of this, it was not possible to give any direction in favor of Monica. However, the Court also added that since fresh examination was to be held for Amita, it would be open for DSSSB to consider Monica's request to let her also appear in the examination.

Sections Referred:

  • Section 31, Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995

Top

Anshul Kapoor vs. Union of India and Another

Filed Under: Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Appellant: Anshul Kapoor
Respondent: Union of India and Another
Citation: 92 (2001) Delhi Law Times 902
Court: In the High Court of Delhi
Judges: S K Mahajan

Facts

Anshul Kapoor applied for a post of a Lower Division Clerk in response to an advertisement issued by Respondent No. 2 (name not mentioned). This advertisement was issued for Special Recruitment of Stenographer Grade – D and Lower Division Clerks for visually handicapped persons. They had advertised that the written examination was to be held only in Braille. One of the candidates, who was partially blind, had filed a Civil Writ Petition in the Court asking that the examination should be held in bold prints since he was not trained in Braille script.

The High Court had allowed this appeal and had directed Respondent No. 2 to provide the questions in bold print. The High Court also directed that an opportunity should be given to all those visually handicapped persons who might not have applied in response to such advertisements due to the clause of examination in Braille only. It was in response to the second advertisement that Anshul Kapoor applied for the post of Lower Division Clerk.

However, due to his negligible vision, Anshul Kapoor was not in a position to read the bold prints even using the magnifying glass. Therefore, he needed a scribe. Since there was a restriction imposed by Respondent No. 2 of not providing assistance of a scribe, he approached their office with the request to permit him to avail the services of a scribe/writer. However they refused this request. Aggrieved by this refusal to provide a scribe to write the examination, Anshul filed this petition.

In response to a show cause notice, respondent No. 2 filed a counter-affidavit. It was contended that there was no provision in the rules to provide a scribe/writer to Anshul for writing the examination. It was further submitted that either the examinations were to be held in Braille or in bold prints.

Observations of the Court

The Court examined the circumstances and the arguments of the case. The Court drew attention to the fact that the Central Board of Secondary Education had provided a scribe to Anshul on payment of Rs. 500/-. It was further pointed out that Anshul had also been provided a scribe for his graduation examinations by the University of Delhi. The Court also took into account the medical certificate that had been issued by AIIMS which stated that Anshul needed aid because of his visual disability.

In light of these circumstances, the Court held that Anshul had been provided with a scribe by both University of Delhi and CBSE and therefore the Court could see no reason as to why respondent No. 2 could not provide him with a scribe. According to the Court the stand taken by respondent No. 2 was completely unjustified.

Accordingly, the Court directed the respondents to provide a scribe to Anshul to write the examination on 25th March, 2001. The Court further held that in case no scribe was provided to Anshul on that date, he would be at a liberty to take a writer along with him. However, the writer should not be academically more qualified than him.

With these orders the petition was disposed of.

Sections Referred:

  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Cases Referred:

  • Sri Subramaniaswami Temple vs. Ramaswamia Pillai; AIR 1950 PC 32
  • Deo Kishen vs. Budh Prakash; ILR 5 All 509
  • Murarji Gokul Das vs. Paravatibai; ILR 1 Bom 177
  • Wooma Pershad Roy vs. Grish Chunder Prochundo; ILR 10 Cal 639
  • Sanku vs. Puttama; ILR 14 Mad 289
  • Muthusami vs. Meenammal; AIR 1929 Mad 652

Top

Parminder Pal Singh vs. Union of India &Anr

Filed Under: Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Appellant: Parminder Pal Singh
Respondent: Union of India &Anr
Citation: 88 (2000) Delhi Law Times 808
Court: In the High Court of Delhi
Judges: Manmohan Sarin

This is a writ petition seeking that visually handicapped persons who have partial sight should not be compelled to take selection examinations in Braille.

Facts

The Government of India was to conduct a special examination for recruitment of Stenographers and Lower division Clerks where a number of vacancies were available for visually handicapped persons. Earlier, question papers had been available both in bold print and in Braille but for this examination, the question papers were only being given in Braille.

Parminder Pal Singh who was a visually handicapped person with partial sight challenged this decision of the Central Government to provide the question papers only in Braille. He contended that not only would visually handicapped persons not knowing Braille be unable to take the examination, but also persons who were not proficient in Braille would be at a disadvantage.

Observations of the Court

The Court observed that persons with partial blindness who were in a position to read with the aid of lenses or bold print should not be treated as totally blind and be compelled to take the examination in Braille.

The Court also rejected the contention of the Central Govt. that their decision to have the question papers only in Braille arose with a view to prevent fraudulent candidates with false medical certificates from being able to compete in the examination.

The Court directed the Central Govt. to examine the feasibility of holding a separate examination for candidates who had partial sight by providing question papers in bold print.

However, the Court rejected Parminder’s prayer to defer the examination already fixed or to provide the question paper in bold print, as the Court observed that a large number of candidates were scheduled to take the examination and that he was late in approaching the Court.

Sections Referred:

  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Top