Dismissed

Union of India, v. Harisankar R.

Kerala HC2 Nov 2023OP (CAT)/135/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This disposition of an Original Petition in CAT dismissed by the High Court of Kerala. The court upheld the CAT order granting a re-appeal opportunity to a PwD candidate denied extra time, citing sensitivity required in disability verification. It observed that hyper-technical insistence on certificates may deny constitutional rights to PwD candidates and directed the commission to issue guideline

What did the court decide?

The original petition challenging the CAT order was dismissed as the observations in the underlying BAT order prohibiting hyper-technicality were upheld in principle. The court exercised discretion to

Union of India, Vs Harisankar R. — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN THURSDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1945

¶6

OP (CAT) NO. 135 OF 2023

¶7

PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN OA:

¶8

1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS NEW DELHI-110001.

¶9

2 STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, BLOCK NO. 12, CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110003

¶10

3 STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, KERALA KARNATAKA REGION (KKR), 1ST FLOOR, 'E' WING KENDRIYA SADAN, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE - 560044.

¶11

BY ADV S.MANU

¶12

RESPONDENT/APPLICANT IN OA:

¶13

HARISANKAR R., AGED 21 YEARS S/O. V. RAJESHKUMAR, RESIDING AT KRISHNA NIVAS, SREE SANKARA COLLEGE ROAD MATTOOR, KALADY P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683574.

¶14

BY ADVS. SHAFIK M.A. GIRIJA P.

¶15

THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

..2..

¶17

OP (CAT) NO. 135 OF 2023

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶20

The Union of India has come up with this original petition, challenging an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short,

¶21

“the Tribunal”). The matter arisen in a

¶22

context of the party respondent approaching the Tribunal for refusal in granting 'extra time' during the Tier III examination (Typing Test) in the Combined Higher Secondary Level Examination – 2021 conducted by the Staff Selection Commission for selection to various posts under various departments in the Government of India.

¶23

The respondent is a PwD (person with

¶24

disability) candidate having benchmark

¶25

disability. He appeared for Tier I and Tier II examinations with certificate issued by an

¶26

Assistant Surgeon for allowing him 'extra

¶27

OP (CAT) NO. 135 OF 2023

¶28

time'. But, for Tier III examination, he was

¶29

not granted 'extra time' pointing out that he

¶30

has produced a certificate not from the authority from whom such certificate was insisted. The Tribunal, noting that such action is arbitrary, interfered with the matter and ordered that the respondent should be given opportunity to appear for Tier III examination again.

¶31

It is to be noted that admittedly the

¶32

respondent is a PwD candidate with benchmark disability. We are not interfering with the impugned order inasmuch as that the approach of the Staff Selection Commission in dealing with such persons, according to us, resulted in denial of an opportunity to them, which law bestowed on such persons. However, certain observations have been made in paragraph 23 of the impugned order in regard to certificate verification prior to examination. There may

¶33

OP (CAT) NO. 135 OF 2023

¶34

..4..

¶35

be some practical difficulty for the Staff Selection Commission to devise such approach. What is required in such matter is that the Staff Selection Commission need to issue

¶36

certain protocols, procedures and guidelines to the invigilators to deal sensitively in such matters, keeping in mind the constitutional goal of equal opportunity to such persons, and there should not be denial of any opportunity in any circumstances to such persons and any insistence of hyper technicality in such matter may sometimes result in denial of opportunity. The substantive right of such persons, as reflected from the very aspect that they have

¶37

been categorized as PwD candidates with benchmark, itself would be sufficient certain times to recognize their right to have 'extra time' or to appear for such examination with the help of scribe. All that required is that

¶38

OP (CAT) NO. 135 OF 2023

¶39

..5..

¶40

there should be some sensitization to the officers or invigilators, who are engaged in such examination.

¶41

With observations as above and declining the

¶42

reliefs sought for, the original petition is disposed of. We make it clear that the observations in paragraph No.23 of the impugned order will not stand in the way of the Staff Selection Commission to devise any procedure, which would be helpful to the candidates for availing the benefit.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

¶48

JUDGE

¶49

bka/-

¶50

OP (CAT) NO. 135 OF 2023

¶51

..6..

¶52

APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 135/2023

¶53

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶54

Annexure	A1 TRUE COPY OF THE DISABILITY CERTIFICATE NO. DI-158/JA/21 DATED 23.2.2021 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT HOSPITAL ALUVA.
Annexure	A2 TRUE COPY OF THE DISABILITY CERTIFICATE NO. KL0881320020169737 DATED 23.2.2021 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.
Annexure	A3 TRUE COPY OF THE UNIQUE DISABILITY ID ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.
Annexure	A4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION FOR COMBINED HIGHER SECONDARY (10+2) LEVEL EXAMINATION, 2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Annexure	A5 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 19.2.2022 BY THE ASSISTANT SURGEON, CHC KALADY.
Annexure	A6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION F. NO. 11/1//202L-C-1/1 DATED 16.12.2022 ISSUED BY THE UNDER SECRETARY OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Annexure	A7 TRUE COPY OF THE HALL TICKET ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Annexure	A8 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 3.1.2023 BY THE ASSISTANT SURGEON, CHC KALADY
Annexure	A 9 TRUE COPY OF THE MARKS DETAILS OF THE APPLICANT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶55

OP (CAT) NO. 135 OF 2023

¶56

..7..

¶57

Annexure A10	TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOTS OF EMAIL DATED 10.1.2023 AND THE REPLY DATED 11.1.2023.
Annexure A11	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION FOR FINAL DOCUMENT VERIFICATION FOR THE QUALIFIED CANDIDATES UPLOADED IN THE WEB SITE.
Annexure A 12	TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 25.03.2023 SEND TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Annexure A13	TRUE COPY OF THE MARKS DETAILS OF THE APPLICANT FROM THE WEBSITE OF STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION CIRCULAR
Annexure A14	TRUE COPY OF THE RESULTS OF NOTIFICATION F.NO. 11/1/2021-C-1/1 DATED 24.07.20223
Annexure A15	TRUE COPY OF THE RTI REQUEST AND THE ANSWER SHEET PROVIDED BY THE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION
Annexure A16	TRUE COPY OF THE RTI REPLY DATED 24.04.2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
Annexure A17	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24.04.2023 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Annexure A18	TRUE COPY OF THE SCREEN SHOT OF THE WEBSITE OF DEPARTMENT OF EMPOWERMENT OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Exhibit P1	4. TRUE COPY OF THE O.A. NO. 180/00147/2023 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON'BLE CAT ERNAKULAM BENCH

¶58

OP (CAT) NO. 135 OF 2023

¶59

..8..

¶60

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN BEFORE THE HON'BLE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH IN OA NO. 180/00147/2023 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION (MA) NO. 419/2023 IN OA NO. 180/00147/2023 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON'BLE CAT ERNAKULAM BENCH Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON'BLE CAT ERNAKULAM BENCH IN OA NO. 180/00147/2023 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.08.2023 IN OA NO. 180/00147/2023 OF THE HON'BLE CAT ERNAKULAM BENCH

Union of India, v. Harisankar R.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India, v. Harisankar R.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shibi Immanuel Vs the Union of India

Union of India Vs K.S.Sajeev

Sunil Kumar. K, Vs State of Kerala

K.T. Skariah Vs K.T.Scariah and Son

Lalitha Thomas Vs Indian Oil Corporation

Chungathara Grama Panchayat Vs Alavi E