LAWS(KER)-2010-6-62

LALI Vs. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY

Decided On June 01, 2010
LALI Appellant
V/S
MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The scope and ambit of Sections 32 and 33 of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the extent of the power of the appropriate Government arise for consideration in this Writ Petition.

(2.) The Petitioner is a Graduate. She has completed P.G Diploma in Computer Application. She is blind. According to her, the percentage of her blindness is 100%. The Medical Board has certified that the Petitioner is blind. Mahathma Gandhi University invited applications from suitable candidates for being appointed to the post of Assistant Grade II. The Petitioner applied for the same. After holding a screening test in 2006, the University invited the Petitioner to appear for the written test held in 2009. She appeared for the written test. The Petitioner was successful in the written test. The Petitioner had appeared for the written examination with the help of a scribe, as sanctioned by the University.

(3.) The University issued Ext.P-2 notification dated 2-11-2009 directing all the physically handicapped candidates, who had appeared for the written examination, to appear for an interview to assess their suitability to the post. The names of 13 persons were included in Ext.P-2 list of which Petitioner was No. 13. The Petitioner appeared for the interview. The University prepared the rank list. It is stated that from out of 13 persons in Ext.P-2 list, 8 persons were included in the rank list. All those 8 persons are in the category of Orthopedically Handicapped. It is not in dispute that more than 200 candidates were selected to the post of Assistant Grade II. The contention of the Petitioner is that going by the number of persons selected, at least two of them should be from the category of blind persons. In view of Section 33 of the Act, it is contended that since the University did not adhere to Section 33 of the Act, there was violation of Article 16(1) of the Constitution.