On Tuesday, 15th April, we had 2 matters listed, both in the Supreme Court.
The first was a mentioning in the Supreme Court, concerning the grant of flexibility for changing scribe details closer to the exam date for the Civil Services Exams and the ability to give exams independently on the computer with a screen reader. We had moved this mentioning request as the matter is otherwise listed for completion of pleadings on 1st May and therefore it is unlikely that the court would have a chance to adjudicate on our prayers in good time before the Prelims exam. The court accordingly listed the matter for hearing on 29th April. We have now also moved an application to make DoPT a party which we had earlier overlooked.
Second, Rekha Sharma’s matter was listed in the Supreme Court. Her basic case was that she did not get appointed as a Civil Judge [Junior Division] in the Rajasthan Judiciary because of the wrong way in which the Rajasthan high Court fixed the cut-off. Specifically, in fixing the cut-off, a candidate with a disability as well as scheduled tribe was also considered against the seats reserved for the disabled rather than being set off against her mother category of scheduled tribe. If this had been done, another seat would have opened up, clearing the way for Rekha to become a judge.
We are happy to report that the Supreme Court accepted our argument. It used its Constitutionally conferred powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice and directed that an appointment order be issued to Rekha.
On Wednesday, 16th April, we had 6 matters listed – 2 in the Supreme Court, 2 in the Delhi High Court, 1 in the Gujarat High Court and one in CAT.
In the Supreme Court, the first matter was Kabir Paharia’s – an MBBS aspirant with five half-grown fingers, in whose case the court had directed his medical reassessment by a board in AIIMS Delhi. We informed the Court that AIIMS had gotten delayed in lining up the assessment and the first round of assessment only happened on that day itself i.e. 16th. And that the candidate has again been called on 22nd. We told them that the next NEET-UG exam is on 4th May and therefore having the matter listed before then is important. Accordingly, the Court requested AIIMS to hasten the assessment and listed the matter on 25th April. We requested them for a fixed time for the hearing and they asked us to mention the matter the 25th morning for the same.
The second Supreme Court matter, in Yash Dadani’s case, was concerning grant of ability to give exams with a screen reader for law exams and imposition of less restrictive norms on the selection of scribes. On this front, the specific reliefs sought have been granted and now only the larger issuance of guidelines to govern similar such cases remains. The matter did not reach. However, it got renotified to this Wednesday [23rd] on which date it is likely to reach, given the position on the board.
In the Delhi High Court, the first matter was against Uber on issues with driver sensitization and grievance redressal of complaints by riders with disabilities. We had reached a settlement with Uber and accordingly the writ was withdrawn.
The second matter was with respect to the PIL on behalf of the Occular Trauma Society of India on bodily injuries caused by firecrackers. The court was on leave and this case got renotified to 21st May.
In the Gujarat High Court, the case that was listed concerned grant of reservation in promotion to a candidate with a locomotor disability. The matter was listed very low on the board, and we therefore mentioned it in the morning. The court renotified it to 9th July but refused to give a specific time. We are contemplating measures to get an effective hearing in this matter expeditiously.
In CAT, an OA filed by us on behalf of Dr. Tina Sharma was listed. It concerns the non-grant of reservation in the Combined Medical Service Exams for those with hearing impairment. Unfortunately, due to ill-health, the candidate was unable to apply for the exam in this cycle. And so the case became infructuous and accordingly had to be withdrawn. However, we are very serious about continuing to pursue the issue of non-grant of reservation in the CMSE in line with Section 34 of the RPwD Act and will continue to pursue the matter in other ways.