Bombay High Court Asks Government to Change its mindset on PH

Change your mindset on physically challenged: Bombay high court tells govt

Published: Tuesday, Aug 3, 2010, 2:29 IST

By Mayura Janwalkar | Place: Mumbai | Agency: DNA  

To read from source, Click here

Krutika Purohit, 17, had nursed the dream of being a physiotherapist since she was nine.

However, with her visual disability, clearing the MHCET for pursuing a degree course in physiotherapy with a good score and obtaining “provisional admission” to the course, has been no cakewalk.

Purohit, perhaps the first visually challenged student to get admission into the four-year degree course in physiotherapy, found an ally in the Bombay high court recently.

The court told the directorate of medical education and research (DMER) that earmarking seats under Persons with Disabilities (equal opportunities, protection of rights and full participation) Act, 1995, serves no purpose without a change in mindset.

"This mindset has to change. You have to feel from within. Every family has a person with some disability. You have to lend a helping hand," justice SC Dharmadhikari said. "They (persons with disabilities) too are mainstream students. You (state government) are not lowering any standards for them.”

Purohit and the Indian association of visually impaired physiotherapists had moved the high court after Purohit was barred from taking MHCET exams owing to her disability.

Although the court allowed Purohit, a Khar resident, to appear for the MHCET examination on April 23, her way to becoming a physiotherapist was far from clear. Purohit's advocate Kanchan Pamnani, herself visually impaired , said the DMER was wrongly applying rules to the physiotherapy course.

The MCI rules say a person with locomotive disability of lower limb (50%-70%) can apply for MBBS courses. But in this case, the authorities did not apply their mind if a visually impaired person could study physiotherapy.

Assistant government pleader GW Mattos said the government would take progressive steps but Purohit's case should be referred to the council of the Maharashtra university of health sciences.

The court also directed the chief commissioner of disabilities to issue directions to universities within two months.

Reservation for Mentally Challenged Persons

High Court admits plea on reservation for mentally challenged in Aerocity: (Indian Express)

Posted: Wed Jul 21 2010, 02:46 hrs

Why isn’t there any reservation for mentally retarded people in Mohali’s Aerocity project? Raising this vital question a 39-year-old resident of Punjab, who has been suffering from mental illness for the last 15 years, has moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court demanding separate reservation for mentally retarded persons other than the reservation for physically disabled.

Taking stock of the petition and considering it to be a question of public importance, Justice Surya Kant has issued notices to the state and referred the petition to be taken up as public interest. Hearing on the plea has been deferred to August 11. Arguing on behalf of petitioner Gurcharan Singh, advocate R S Bains has sought directions to the state of Punjab to “to include mentally challenged ain the category of disabled persons since the Act does not differentiate between the physically and mentally disabled as far as affirmative actions by the state are concerned”. Vehemently arguing and terming the reservation policy as “non violative” of the guidelines laid down, Bains has sought directions “to modify the consolidated reservation policy for allotment of houses and plots for physically handicapped or the visually impaired”. The petitioner has also demanded that a “fresh and comprehensive scheme for fulfilling the mandate of Disabilities Act” shall be formulated.

The petitioner has been suffering from mental illness since 1985 and is undergoing treatment at PGIMER, Chandigarh, could not apply under the reserve categories due to the anomaly in the policy and the advertisement and had to apply in the general category.

“This relief shall be provided to all the similar situated persons and also to earmark at least one seventh of the plots (category wise) exclusively for the mentally ill persons (out of the three percent plots collectively reserved for physically handicapped/ blind persons) for which the authorities have invited applications in the Aero City, Mohali and for grant of any other relief,” Bains demanded. The petitioner has demanded separate reservation for mentally ill persons other than the reservation already prescribed for physically disabled persons.

Maharashtra Govt assures barrier free environment before the High Court

Dear Friends,

 In response to a PIL, Govt. of Maharashtra has promised before the Nagpur Bench of the Mumbai High Court that it will make all the public buildings barrier free. Here are more details from Times of India news report:

State assures barrier-free environment for disabled

NAGPUR: Maharashtra government on Thursday assured the high court here that it would immediately remove all barriers from public buildings to allow smooth movement to physically challenged and the elderly.

A division bench of justices Sharad Bobde and MN Gilani asked the government to file a reply informing about efforts taken in this regard in two weeks and also to furnish details regarding expenditure of Rs 7.60 crore funds released by the Centre for every state for welfare of handicapped and senior citizens. These funds were allocated in October last year for construction of hand rails and ramps in government buildings that are frequently used by people.

The court further directed the state to constitute a coordination committee having politicians and bureaucrats for welfare of such citizens. When the additional government pleader Bharti Dangre stated it might be in existence, the judges tersely asked the government to then "wake up" its members. The bench was hearing a plea filed by a city-based disabled scientist PN Andhare through his counsel Trupti Udeshi who is also physically handicapped.

The petitioner, who is 80% disabled, had filed the PIL through an NGO Indradhanu praying for compliance of Maharashtra government resolution of 2005 that mandated facilities for disabled. Secretary Prakash Sohoni is another petitioner. As per the duo, local authorities including the NMC should make efforts to implement by-laws, guidelines and measures to ensure a barrier-free built environment and non-discrimination in transport for the handicapped and senior citizens.

Even the banks and NMC failed to set up ramps or a guide rail for such persons. Pointing out several lacunae on the roads and footpaths, petitioners claimed that they were laid in such a way that it becomes difficult for both disabled and elderly to move. Encroachments on all footpaths created further obstacles to movement.

They contended that despite Lokayukta's recommendations, the master transportation plan for the city had no provisions for disabled. There was no monitoring system by which implementation of the Persons for Disabilities Act could be verified. Additionally, there was no grievance redressal mechanism by which these issues could be resolved. Citing reply to an RTI query, the petitioners claimed that NMC could not cite even a single government building where facilities were provided for the disabled.

During last hearing, the court asked the Indian Institute of Architects (IIA) to conduct a survey of all the government/semi-government buildings in the city regarding such facilities. The IIA has been told to take help of Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) town planning officer and submit report in four months.

Rights of Students to see their answer sheets confirmed by SC

Dear Friends,

The Supreme Court has finally confirmed that all students have a rights to inspect and get a photocopy of their answer sheets after their evaluation under the RTI. I see this particularly coming handy to lakhs of students and candidates with disabilities, whose results are often withheld by the examining bodies in an attempt to thwart their induction/recruitment.

I have several of such experiences, where my clients with disabilities were subjected to this silent discrimination. And it was only after our seeking the details of marks obtained under RTI Act, that the malady came to fore. But, the boards did not allow us to see our copy whether what they said was correct. This is going to be a great deterrent for the authorities/examining bodies especially in the recruitment examinations, to discriminate against persons with disabilities or practice a biased approach.

regards

SC Vashishth   

To read from source click the link below:

Student has right to see evaluated answer sheet:SC

They have the right to inspect and photocopy their answer sheets after their evaluation under the Right to Information (RTI) Act

Submitted on 08/10/2011 - 12:16:47 PM

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said that students have the right to inspect and photocopy their answer sheets after their evaluation under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

The apex court bench of Justices RV Raveendran and AK Patnaik allowed the disclosure of the answer sheets of the examination conducted by boards, universities, institutions and public service commissions, when it upheld the Calcutta High Court judgment that permitted the students to inspect their answer sheets.

The apex court pronounced its verdict saying that evaluated answer sheets come under the definition of "information" and reiterated the duty of the public authority under the transparency law to allow maximum disclosure as envisaged by the RTI Act.

The case reached the apex court from high court which by its March 28, 2008, judgment permitted a student, Pritam Rooj, to inspect his answer sheets. Rooj was a student of mathematics in Presidency College.

In 2006, when he sat for the first part of degree examination he secured 52 per cent marks. In the second year he got 208 out of 400 marks and got just 28 marks out of 100 in fifth papers. Upon seeking revaluation, his marks increased by four in the fifth paper.

He contended that his poor marks stood in the way of his getting admission in post-graduation course and applied to inspect his mark sheet under the RTI law which was rejected.

The university said that the answer sheets of an examinee cannot be shared. The High Court overruled it. The order was challenged in apex court by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) and the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, among others.

OBC seats can’t be converted into general ones

A Supreme Court bench said conversion of seats reserved for OBC to general category seats in central educational institutions was not permissible

New Delhi: Conversion of seats reserved for students belonging to the Other Backward Classes (OBC) to general category seats in central educational institutions was not permissible, the Supreme Court has ruled.

The apex court bench of Justice RV Raveendran and Justice AK Patnaik said this while reserving its verdict on a petition by PV Indiresan, former Director of Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai.

The petitioner challenged the September 7, 2010, verdict of the Delhi High Court which said that the minimum eligibility marks for admission under the OBC category would be 10 per cent below the minimum eligibility marks fixed for general category students.

The process to take away the OBC seats for conversion into general category seats was not permissible, Justice Raveendran said, reports IANS.

The court said this when senior Counsel KK Venugopal, appearing for the petitioner, said that in case the court decided the issue against him then it must ensure that 50 per cent seats earmarked for general category students were not encroached upon by OBC candidates even if some of them entered a university by taking the merit route.

When a lawyer referred to Justice Raveendran's observation that rules of the game couldn't be changed after its start, the judges said that what they meant was that it had to be decided in advance at what point the process of the admission of the OBC students under the reserved category would start and what would be the cut-off marks.

Venugopal sought to make a distinction between the reservation for the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and the OBC and said they could not be placed at par because social ostracism suffered by the former did not visit the latter.

Justice Patnaik asked Venugopal that when the law used the same language for extending reservation to the OBC as it did in the case of SC/ST, then how he could interpret it differently.

While reserving its verdict, the court gave all the contending parties time till Monday to submit their written submissions.