JUSTICE SUNANDA BHANDARE FOUNDATION Vs. U.O.I.
LAWS(SC)-2014-3-76
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
March 26,2014
Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation
Appellant
VERSUS
U.O.I.
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
DEEPU SANWARIA VS. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2019-7-42] [REFERRED TO]RAJIVE RATURI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2017-12-81] [REFERRED TO]
PRANAY KUMAR PODDER VS. STATE OF TRIPURA AND OTHERS [LAWS(SC)-2017-3-81] [REFERRED TO]
JUSTICE SUNANDA BHANDARE FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(SC)-2017-4-95] [REFERRED TO]
ARUN SINGHVI VS. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-11-4] [REFERRED TO]
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION VS. E. DINESHAN AND OTHERS [LAWS(KER)-2016-1-98] [REFERRED TO]
BHUVNESH PACHAURI VS. STATE OF U P AND 2 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-11-174] [REFERRED TO]
VARINDER KUMAR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2016-9-54] [REFERRED TO]
ARUN KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS. [LAWS(JHAR)-2016-3-13] [REFERRED TO]
RENJITH J.V. VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2020-8-290] [REFERRED TO]
BALAKRISHNAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2021-7-113] [REFERRED TO]
SHANTA DIGAMBAR SONAWANE VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2024-2-48] [REFERRED TO]
NIGEL ANTHONY S. VS. STATE OF GOA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-3-171] [REFERRED TO]
DIPAMONI KALITA AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2016-2-6] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPIKA SAGAR NERSEKAR VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2016-5-80] [REFERRED TO]
NASIRUDDIN ANSARI VS. STATE OF SIKKIM AND ORS. [LAWS(SIK)-2015-3-3] [REFERRED TO]
BIJU SUNDAR VS. HIGH COURT OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2023-12-204] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KUMAR B., VS. COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY [LAWS(KER)-2020-8-443] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. M. SELVAKUMAR [LAWS(SC)-2017-1-52] [REFERRED TO]
NASIRUDDIN ANSARI VS. STATE OF SIKKIM [LAWS(SIK)-2019-12-4] [REFERRED TO]
NIPUN MALHOTRA VS. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2018-6-29] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Writ Petition (Civil) No. 116 of 1998
In this Writ Petition filed by the petitioner a charitable trust, the prayers made are (i) for implementation of the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short, '1995 Act'), (ii) direction for the reservation of 1% of the identified teaching posts in the faculties and college of various Universities in terms of Section 33 of the 1995 Act, and (iii) for declaration that denial of appointment to the visually disabled persons in the faculties and college of various Universities in the identified posts is violative of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 15 read with Article 41 of the Constitution of India.
(2.)Initially, two respondents, namely, (one) Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Welfare and (two) University Grants Commission (U.G.C.) through its Chairperson were impleaded as party respondents.
(3.)On 07.10.1998, the Court ordered impleadment of the States and so also the Union Territories and, accordingly, respondent Nos. 3 to 34 were impleaded as party respondents.
In this Writ Petition filed by the petitioner a charitable trust, the prayers made are (i) for implementation of the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short, '1995 Act'), (ii) direction for the reservation of 1% of the identified teaching posts in the faculties and college of various Universities in terms of Section 33 of the 1995 Act, and (iii) for declaration that denial of appointment to the visually disabled persons in the faculties and college of various Universities in the identified posts is violative of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 15 read with Article 41 of the Constitution of India.
(2.)Initially, two respondents, namely, (one) Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Welfare and (two) University Grants Commission (U.G.C.) through its Chairperson were impleaded as party respondents.
(3.)On 07.10.1998, the Court ordered impleadment of the States and so also the Union Territories and, accordingly, respondent Nos. 3 to 34 were impleaded as party respondents.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.