Disposed

Blessen Baby v. Union of India

Kerala HC9 Nov 2022WP(C)/25081/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a PIL filed by a student with specified disability challenging the 40% disability threshold for examination concessions. The court disposed of the petition after the State Government issued an order authorising the Director of General Education to frame guidelines for students under Section 2(s) of the RPwD Act, 2016.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; authority directed to frame guidelines and issue directions for effective implementation within two weeks.

Blessen Baby Vs Union of India — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY WEDNESDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶6

WP(C) NO. 25081 OF 2022

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

BLESSEN BABY AGED 19 YEARS S/O. BABY M.C. MATTAPPILLIL HOUSE, PANCODE P.O. PUTHENCRUZ, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN - 682310

¶9

BY ADVS. SHEJI P.ABRAHAM O.K.MURALEEDHARAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 UNION OF INDIA REP. BY SECRETARY MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT, SHASTRI BHAWAN, C-WING, DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001

¶12

2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031

¶13

3 THE SECRETARY SOCIAL JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OF KERALA STATE, ROOM NO. 620 , 1ST FLOOR, SOUTH BLOCK, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶14

4 THE SECRETARY GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001

¶15

W.P.(C).No.25081/2022

¶16

¶17

5 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014

¶18

BY ADVS. SRI.K.R.RANJITH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

W.P.(C).No.25081/2022

¶21

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Dated this the 9^th day of November, 2022

¶24

S. MANIKUMAR, CJ

¶25

This writ petition is filed for the following reliefs:

¶26

i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to frame rules for the children in need of special assistance in the State schools for the SSLC, 1st year Higher Secondary and 2nd year Higher secondary examinations, without fixing any percentage of minimum disability, for availing the benefits as provided under Sec. 4(2) and Sec. 17(1) of The Right of Persons With Disabilities Act 2016

¶27

ii) To declare that exhibit P2 judgment of this Hon'ble Court is applicable to all students in need of special assistance in SSLC as well as 1st year Higher Secondary and 2nd year Higher secondary examinations in the State Schools.

¶28

iii) To declare that the disability of the students in need of support for their SSLC, 1st year and 2nd year Higher Secondary examinations in the State school shall be assessed by the Authority as defined under Section 2 (s) of The Right of Persons With Disabilities Act 2016.

¶29

W.P.(C).No.25081/2022

¶30

¶31

iv) To declare that all the differently abled students studying in the State Schools coming under the definition of Section (2) S of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 are entitled for the assistance for their respective examinations.

¶32

2.After considering the material on record, on 4^th August 2022, we passed the following order:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

Petitioner, a differently abled student, filed this writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation .

¶35

Earlier, when the petitioner was studying in Class X, his request for a scribe as per Section 4(2) and 17(i) of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 for the public examination was rejected by the authorities on the ground that the disability should be 40% or above for the assistance of a scribe for the SSLC examination for the year 2020. Aggrieved by the same, he approached this Court by filing W.P.

¶36

¶37

20.02.2020 in his favour.

¶38

W.P.(C).No.25081/2022

¶39

¶40

In the writ appeal preferred by the respondents therein against Ext. P2 judgment, this Court, taking note of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission

¶41

& others [2021 SCC Online SC 84], directed the State Government to revisit the guidelines in vogue and issued by the Government of Kerala and to issue fresh guidelines, after taking note of the guidelines issued or to be issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment of the Government of India in tune with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioner has passed his Xth and XIIth standard examinations with the aid of a scribe, on the basis of the judgments in his favour.

¶42

Contending that the disability criteria is still 40% or above for the students in need of special assistance in the State Government schools for the SSLC and Higher Secondary Examinations and that the State Government has not framed any rules for the diferently abled students as directed by this Court, this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶43

Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to frame rules for the children in need of special assistance in the State schools for the SSLC, 1st year Higher Secondary and 2nd year Higher Secondary examinations, without fixing any percentage of

¶44

W.P.(C).No.25081/2022

¶45

¶46

minimum disability, for availing the benefits as provided under Section 4(2) and Sec. 17(i) of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

¶47

To declare that Ext. P2 judgment of this Hon'ble Court is applicable to all students in need of special assistance in SSLC as well as first year Higher Secondary and 2nd year Higher Secondary Examination in the State Schools.

¶48

To declare that the disability of the students in need of support for their SSLC, first year and second year Higher Secondary Examinations in the State school shall be assessed by the authority as defined under Section 2(s) of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

¶49

To Declare that all the differently abled students studying in the State schools coming under the definition of Section (2) S of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 are entitled for the assistance for their respective examinations.

¶50

On this day, when the matter came up for admission, Mr. Sheji P. Abraham, learned counsel for the petitioner, invited our attention to a

¶51

recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avni Prakash v.

¶52

National Testing Agency (NTA) & Ors. [judgment dated 23.11.2021 in Civil Appeal No. 7000 of 2021], in which it is ordered thus:

¶53

W.P.(C).No.25081/2022

¶54

¶55

“...In Vikash Kumar (supra), the UPSC placed reliance on the Civil Services Examination Rules 2018 to submit that only PwBD can be provided with the facility of a scribe. This Court held that the petitioner was entitled to reasonable accommodation in the form of being provided with the facility of a scribe for writing the UPSC examination even if he did not suffer from a benchmark disability. It is evident that despite the clarification of the position in law in Vikash Kumar (supra), the law continues to be violated and NTA has continued to restrict the grant of facilities only to PwBD. By way of abundant caution, we reiterate that the facility of reservation in terms of Section 32 is available to PwBD. Other facilities contemplated by the RPwD Act 2016 for PwD cannot be so restricted by an administrative order which would be contrary to the provisions of the statute.

¶56

56 In our view, the first respondent cannot be allowed to simply get away when confronted with the situation in hand whereby injustice has been caused to a student by standing behind the situation of a large competitive examination. Individual injustices originating in a wrongful denial of rights and entitlements prescribed under the law cannot be sent into oblivion on the ground that these are a necessary consequence of a competitive examination.

¶57

F Conclusion

¶58

W.P.(C).No.25081/2022

¶59

¶60

57 Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, we conclude and direct as follows:

¶61

(i) The relief sought by the appellant for holding a re-examination for the NEET (UG) is denied;

¶62

(ii) The appellant was wrongfully deprived of compensatory time of one hour while appearing for the NEET without any fault of her own, despite her entitlements as a PwD and a

¶63

PwBD. Accordingly, the first respondent is directed to consider what steps could be taken to rectify the injustice within a period of one week. Further, it shall take necessary consequential measures under intimation to the DGHS;

¶64

(iii) In the future, the first respondent shall ensure that provisions which are made at the NEET in terms of the rights and entitlements available under the RPwD Act 2016 are clarified in the NEET Bulletin by removing ambiguity, as noticed in the present case;

¶65

(iv) Having due regard to the decision of this Court in Vikash Kumar (supra) and the statutory provisions contained in the RPwD Act 2016, facilities which are provided by the law to PwD shall not be constricted by reading in the higher threshold prescribed for PwBD;

¶66

(v) By way of abundant caution, it is clarified that for the purpose of availing of the reservation under Section 32 of the RPwD Act 2016 or an

¶67

W.P.(C).No.25081/2022

¶68

¶69

upper age relaxation as contemplated in the provisions, the concept of benchmark disability continues to apply; and

¶70

(vi) It was brought to our notice that the second respondent was ignorant about the facilities to which the appellant was entitled. There was an evident confusion between the authorities working at the first respondent as well. The persons working for the first respondent and exam centres like that of the second respondent should be sensitised and trained, on a regular basis, to deal with requirements of reasonable accommodation raised by PwDs.

¶71

58 The steps taken by the first respondent in furtherance of direction (ii) above in Paragraph 57 must be communicated to the Registry of this Court by filing a status report within a period of two weeks from the date of this judgment.”

¶72

Responding to the above, Mr. N. Manoj Kumar, learned State Attorney, submitted that the Government of Kerala has issued guidelines in the matter of extending concession to the candidates with special needs having 40% or more disability. He also invited our attention to Appendix -7 of Ext. P7 Notification, 2022 for the conduct of Second Year Higher Secondary Examination, 2022.

¶73

However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that irrespective

¶74

of the percentage of disability, the benefits of Ext. P2 judgment may be

¶75

W.P.(C).No.25081/2022

¶76

¶77

extended to all the students in need of special assistance in SSLC as well as first year and second year Higher Secondary examinations.

¶78

Sri. S. Manu, learned ASGI, takes notice for the Union of India, rep. by Secretary, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, New Delhi – 110 001, respondent No.1. Sri. N. Manoj Kumar, learned State Attorney, takes notice for State of Kerala, represented by the Chief Secretary, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram, the Secretary, Social Justice Department of Kerala State, Thiruvananthapuram, the Secretary, General Education Department, Thiruvananthapuram and the Director of General Education, Department of General Education, Thiruvananthapuram, respondent Nos. 2 to 5 respectively, and he seeks time to get instructions in the matter. Post the matter on 23.08.2022.

¶79

Thereafter on 7^th October, 2022, the Government sought for time. On 8^th November, 2022, when the matter came up for hearing, by inviting attention of this Court to G.O.(M.S.) No.196/2022/G.Edn. Dated 25.10.2022, learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that the Government has issued orders

¶80

to frame guidelines for conducting written examination for person with disabilities covered under the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

¶81

W.P.(C).No.25081/2022

¶82

¶83

The Government Order extracted in the order 8^th November, 2022 is

¶84

reproduced hereunder:

¶85

GOVERNMENT OF KERALA

¶86

Abstract

¶87

General Education Department - Guidelines for conducting written examination for persons with disabilities covered under the Right of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016 - Orders Issued.

¶88

GENERAL EDUCATION (R) DEPARTMENT

¶89

G.O.(Ms)No. 196/2022/GEDN Dated,Thiruvananthapuram, 25-10- 2022

¶90

Read 1. Office Memorandum F.No. 34-02/2015-DD-III of Government of India, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment dated 29.08.2018.

¶91

Office Memorandum F.No. 29-6/2019-DD-III of Government of India, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment dated 10.08.2022.

¶92

Letter F.No.5-27/2022-IS-18 from Government of India, Ministry of Education, Department of School Education and Literacy dated 12.09.2022.

¶93

Letter No. IED/613683/2022/DGE dated 13.10.2022 from Director of General Education, Thiruvananthapuram.

¶94

Circular No.IED/618332/2022/DGE dated 26.08.2022 of Director of General Education, Kerala.

¶95

ORDER

¶96

Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan), Government of India has issued guidelines for conducting written examination for persons with Benchmark disabilities and also for persons with specified disabilities covered under the definition of Section 2(s) of the Right of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, but

¶97

W.P.(C).No.25081/2022

¶98

¶99

not covered under the definition of Section 2(r) of the said Act, vide Office Memoranda read as 1^st and 2^nd paper above respectively.

¶100

In pursuance to the above said memoranda, Ministry of Education, Department of School Education and Literacy has requested to take necessary action in implementing those guidelines vide letter read as 3^rd paper above. The Director of General Education, Kerala has submitted proposal for implementing the guidelines issued by Government of India in this regard, in the State of Kerala, vide letter read as 4^th paper above.

¶101

Government have examined the matter in detail and are pleased to accord sanction for the implementation of guidelines issued by Government of India as per paper read as (1) and (2) above based on RPwD Act, 2016, in toto in Kerala.

¶102

The Director of General Education is authorised to issue detailed guidelines in this regard. The existing benefits provided as per the paper 5^th read above will be retained in addition to the above.

¶103

(By order of the Governor)

¶104

A P M MOHAMMED HANISH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY”

¶105

That apart the Additional Director (Academic) of General Education,

¶106

has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the Director of General Education,

¶107

Department of General Education, Thiruvananthapuram - respondent No.5, wherein it is stated thus:

¶108

“2. It is submitted that the petitioner is a differently abled student

¶109

W.P.(C).No.25081/2022

¶110

¶111

with an IO 70 for which the disability assessed by the medical board in 2019 is 25%. He has passed his 10^th standard in 2019 and VHSE in 2022 with the help of scribe for both the examinations.

¶112

It is true that the petitioner applied for scribe in the public exam as per the notification. The request of the petitioner was rejected by stating that the disability of the petitioner is not above 40% as stated in the Medical Board Certificate. The disability certificate issued by the Medical Authority concerned marks 25% of disability for the petitioner.

¶113

It is true that the petitioner filed a Writ Petition W.P.(C) No.4499/2020 challenging the rejection of his request for the assistance of the scribe on the basis of RPWD Act, 2016. The petition was allowed permitting the scribe and extra time in the examination.

¶114

It is submitted that, Writ Appeal No. 440/20 aroses from the Judgment of WP(C) No.4499/2020 in which the assistance of scribe for the exam was allotted. Since the petitioner has only 25% disability the assistance of scribe could not be allotted as per the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities in F.No.34-02/2015-DD-III dated 29.08.2018. This guideline was meant for conducting written exam for persons with benchmark disability as defined under Section 2 (r) of the RPWD 2010. Accordingly the examination concessions for the persons with benchmark disability (40% disability) was allowed as per the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. In MHRD Notification

¶115

W.P.(C).No.25081/2022

¶116

¶117

S.0.76(E) dated 04.01.2018 evaluation and procedure for certification of various specified disabilities was notified and hence concessions for persons with benchmark disabilities only were granted.

¶118

In the Judgment dismissing the Writ Appeal No. 440/2020 dated 18.03.2021, the Hon'ble Court has directed the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment to frame appropriate guidelines which would facilitate the grant of scribe to persons with disability falling under Section 2(s) of the RPWD Act, 2016. Accordingly, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment has issued the guidelines only on 10.08.2022 for conducting written exam for persons with disability covered under the definition of Section 2(s) of RPWD Act, 2016 i.e. persons having less than 40% disability and having difficulty is writing.

¶119

It is true that Section 2(r) of the RPWD Act, 2016 applies to all students who are in need of support for their exams and there is no minimum disability prescribed for availing assistance. As directed by the Supreme Court, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment has issued guidelines for granting exam concessions to persons with specified disability and was notified on 10.08.2022. The Government of Kerala is in the path of framing fresh guidelines in accordance with the guidelines stipulated above

¶120

It is respectfully submitted that this respondent has taken note of the guidelines issued by Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment on 10.08.2022 which was communicated to this office on 01.10.2022. A

¶121

W.P.(C).No.25081/2022

¶122

¶123

true photocopy of the office memorandum issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Department, Empowerment of Government of India dated 10.08.2022 along with letter No.5 27/2022-IS-180 dated 12.09.2022 from the Department of School Education and Literacy, Ministry of Education, Government of India is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R5(a). On receipt of Exhibit R5(a), this respondent had submitted a proposal to the 2nd respondent to revisit and issue fresh guidelines to grant the eligible concessions due to the persons with specified disabilities falling under the category Section 2(s) of RPWD Act, 2016 vide letter No.IED/613683/2022/DGE dated 13.10.2022 in tune with the guidelines published by the Ministry of Social Justice Department dated 10.08.2022. Thereafter the General Education Department, Government of Kerala has issued an order G.O.(Ms) No.196/2022/G.Edn dated 25.10.2022 granting sanction for the implementation of guidelines issued as per Office Memorandum F.No.3402/2015-DD-Ill of Government of India, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment dated 29.08.2018 and Office Memorandum F.No.296/2019-DD-III of Government of India.Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment dated 10.08.2022 based on Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and authorized the Director of General Education to issue guidelines in this regard. A true photocopy of the,G.O.(Ms) No.196/2022/G.Edn dated 25.10.2022 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R5(b).

¶124

It is submitted that since the General Education Department,

¶125

W.P.(C).No.25081/2022

¶126

¶127

Government of Kerala has granted sanction vide Exhibit R5(b) Government Order, this respondent is taking earnest effort to comply with the process and to issue guidelines for granting eligible concession to the students falling under the above category in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government of India before the forthcoming public examinations."

¶128

R5(a) referred to in the counter affidavit is reproduced hereunder:

¶129

F.No.29-6/2019-DD-III

¶130

Government of India

¶131

Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment

¶132

Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan)

¶133

Pt. Deendayal Antyodaya Bhawan, CGO Complex, New Delhi-110000 Dated: the 10 August, 2022

¶134

Office Memorandum

¶135

Subject: Guidelines for conducting written examination for persons with specified disabilities covered under the definition of Section 2(s) of the RPwD Act, 2016 but not covered under the definition of Section 2(r) of the said Act, i.e. persons having less than 40% disability and having difficulty in writing

¶136

The undersigned is directed to say that this Department has issued guidelines for conducting written examination for persons with

¶137

W.P.(C).No.25081/2022

¶138

¶139

benchmark disabilities (ie. with 40% or more disability, for whom the benefit of reservation in Government posts are allowed) on 29.08.2018 and corrigendum dated 08.02.2019 which inter alia, provides for grant of scribe and compensatory time. Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 11.02.2021 in the matter of Shri Vikash Kumar Vs UPSC and others has directed this Department to frame proper guidelines which would regulate and facilitate the grant of a facility of a scribe to persons with disability within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the RPWD Act, 2016, where the nature of disability operates to impose a barrier to the candidate writing an examination. These guidelines should also prescribe appropriate norms to ensure that condition of the candidate is duly certified by such competent medical authority as may be prescribed so as to ensure that only genuine candidates in need of the facility are able to avail it.

¶140

Keeping in view the above order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, an Expert Committee was constituted to consider the issue and suggest guidelines accordingly. The Committee noted that there are various types of clinical problems that can affect the writing capacity. After careful consideration of the matter, the Committee recommended that sole criteria for grant of scribe and compensatory time should be based on assessment of the capability of a person to write.

¶141

The Committee accordingly recommended the following guidelines for conducting written examination for persons with specified disabilities covered under the definition of Section 2(s) of the RPwD

¶142

W.P.(C).No.25081/2022

¶143

¶144

Act,2016 but not covered under the definition of Section 2(t) of the said Act, i.e. persons having less than 40% disability and having difficulty in writing:

¶145

(a) These guidelines may be called as Guidelines for conducting written examination for persons with specified disabilities covered under the definition of Section 2(s) of the RPWD Act, 2016 but not covered under the definition of Section 2(r) of the said Act, i.e. persons having less than 40% disability and having difficulty in writing.

¶146

(b) The facility of scribe and/or compensatory time shall be granted solely to those having difficulty in writing subject to production of a certificate to the effect that person concerned has limitation to write and that scribe is essential to write examination on his/her behalf from the competent medical authority of a Government healthcare institution as per proforma Appendix-1.

¶147

(c) The medical authority for the purpose of certification as mentioned in point (b) above should be a multi-member authority comprising the following:

¶148

i. Chief Medical officer/Civil Surgeon/Chief District Medical Officer...Chairperson

¶149

ii. Orthopaedic/PMR specialist

¶150

iii. Neurologist, if available

¶151

iv. Clinical Psychologist/Rehabilitation Psychologist/Psychiatrist/Special Educator

¶152

v. Occupational therapist, if available

¶153

vi. Any other expert based on the condition of the candidate as may be nominated by the Chairperson.

¶154

(*the Chief Medical Officer/Civil Surgeon/Chief District Medical Officer may make full efforts for inclusion of neurologists, occupational

¶155

W.P.(C).No.25081/2022

¶156

¶157

therapist from the nearest District or the Medical College/Institute, if the same is not available in the District)"

¶158

(d) The candidate should have the discretion of opting for his own scribe or request the Examination Body for the same. The examination body may also identify the scribe to make

¶159

panels at the District/Division/State level as per the requirements of the examination. In later instances the candidates should be allowed to meet the scribe two days before the examination so that the candidates get a chance to check and verify whether the scribe is suitable or not.

¶160

(e) In case the examination body provides the scribe, it shall be ensured that qualification of the scribe should not be more than the minimum qualification criteria of the examination. However, the qualification of the scribe should always be matriculate or above.

¶161

In case the candidate is allowed to bring his own scribe, the qualification of the scribe should be one step below the qualification of the candidate taking examination. The person opting for own scribe should submit details of the own scribe as per proforma at AppendixII.

¶162

(f) There should also be flexibility in accommodating any change in scribe in case of emergency. The candidates should also be allowed to take different scribe for writing different papers especially for languages. However, there can be only one scribe per subject.

¶163

(g) The candidate should be allowed to use aids and assistive devices such as prosthetics & orthotics, hearing aid as mentioned in para 2 of the certificate issued by medical authority as per Appendix L

¶164

(h) Compensatory time not less than 20 minutes per hour of the examination should be allowed for persons who are eligible for getting scribe. In case the duration of the examination is less than an hour, then the duration of the compensatory time should be allowed on prorata basis. Compensatory time should not be less than 5 minutes and should be in the multiple of S.

¶165

W.P.(C).No.25081/2022

¶166

¶167

(i) The examination bodies shall modify their application forms to incorporate specific needs of this category of persons. In case, any incident has been reported after filling up the form, the examination bodies shall inform the candidates to obtain medical certificate as per these guidelines for facilitating grant of scribe and/or compensatory time.

¶168

(j) As far as possible the examination for such persons may be held at ground floor. The examination centres should be accessible for persons with disabilities.

¶169

(k) These guidelines are applicable to written examinations conducted by central recruitment agencies as well as academic institutions. The States/UTs may adopt these guidelines or issue similar guidelines to maintain uniformity.

¶170

(1) These guidelines are independent of the Guidelines for conducting written examination for persons with benchmark disabilities issued by the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities on 29.08.2018.

¶171

(m) The examining bodies shall ensure strict vigilance to check misuse of facility of scribe.

¶172

All the recruitment agencies, Academics/Examination Bodies etc. under the administrative control of each Ministry/Department may be advised appropriately to ensure compliance of implementing these guidelines.

¶173

The above guidelines are issued with the approval of Hon'ble Minister (Social Justice

¶174

& Empowerment).

¶175

Sd/Deputy Secretary to the Government of India

¶176

W.P.(C).No.25081/2022

¶177

¶178

That apart, Mr.K.P.Harish – learned Senior Government Pleader, submitted that guidelines will be issued within two weeks from today and the concerned educational authorities would be directed to act upon.

¶179

Submission of the learned Senior Government Pleader is placed on record.

¶180

Now the Government have issued the above said order and the Director of General Education has been authorised to issue detailed guidelines within two weeks from today.

¶181

Placing on record the above, we dispose of the writ petition,

¶182

directing the said authority to frame guidelines and issue appropriate directions to all concerned for effective implementation of the same.

Sd/-

S. MANIKUMAR,

CHIEF JUSTICE.

Sd/-

SHAJI P. CHALY,

smv

JUDGE.

W.P.(C).No.25081/2022

¶191

¶192

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25081/2022

¶193

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit p1	TRUE COPY OF THE DISABILITY CERTIFICATE NO. C2-1204/2020 DTD 3.2.2020 ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL BOARD ATTACHED TO THE GOVERNMENT GENERAL HOSPITAL, ERNAKULAM
Exhibit P2	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DTD 20.02.2020 IN W.P.(C) NO. 4499/2020
Exhibit P3	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DTD 18.03.2021 IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 440/2020
Exhibit P4	COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE NOTIFICATION DTD 25.09.2021 FOR THE SSLC EXAMINATION IN MARCH 2022
Exhibit P5	COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P4
Exhibit P6	COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE NOTIFICATION DTD 02.03.2022 FOR THE 1ST YEAR HIGHER SECONDARY EXAMINATION IN MARCH 2022
Exhibit P7	COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE NOTIFICATION DTD 27.12.2021 FOR THE 2ND YEAR HIGHER SECONDARY EXAMINATION IN MARCH 2022
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R5(a)	A true photocopy of the office memorandum issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment Department, Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Government of India dated 10.08.2022 along with letter No.5-27/2022- IS-180 dated 12.09.2022 from the Department of School Education and Literacy, Ministry of Education,Government of India
Exhibit R5(b)	A true photocopy of the G.O.(Ms) No.196/2022/G.Edn dated 25.10.2022.

Blessen Baby v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Blessen Baby v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Regionalmanager, Vs Bindu Vijayakumar

Balakurup Vs the New India Assurance Co.Ltd.

K.Balakurup Vs B.Retnamma

Nibu Michael Vs Lovely Santy

The Registering Authority, Regional Transport Office, Kottarakkara Vs Saifudeen

P.Subhash Chandran Vs the Kerala Minerals and Metals Limited