copy of the petition akas case
DESCRIPTION
ÂTRANSCRIPT
I
I
m rHE ]ncn count-or K/rnftrrfl[/l AT BAmLoRE
(oRrGrNAL JURISDTCION)
r ff. P No............t20o7 (GM- PIL)
BETWEEN
Akhila Karnataka Andha Shikshakarugala Kshemabhivriddhi Sangha
Having its Regd. Office at: Sri Nilaya
No. 3452/1 A, 3'd Main Road,
Tilak Nagar, Mysore
Represented by its Secretary
Sri. Veera Kyathaiah N.
ANDa_
PETITIONER
1. Selection Authority and Deputy Director (Administration)
Department of Public lnstructions
State Government of Karnataka
M.S. Building,
Bangalore-560001
The Secretary,
Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms
State Government of Karnataka
No.32, Vidhana Soudha
Bangalore 560 001
3. The State Government of Karnataka
D.epartment of Women and Child Wetfare
M.S. Building
Bangalore-560001. (
Represented by its Principal secretary
... ... RESPONDENTS
2.
L
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
1. Tlis Peflim is fled .u "'p,S["
ilftrest fiigation rrnder Artide 226
Constitution by the Petitioner Association on behalf of all visualty impaired
persons in the Stale of Karnataka to protect their rights for equal opportunity
to seek employment as primary schoolteachers in government schools under
the Persons with Disabilities (Equal'Opportunities, Protection of Rights & Full
Participation) Act 19gs (hereinafter referred to as the IWD Act). The
Respondent State Government has issued a Notification dated,'"BO.O7.2OOl
calling for applications from interested candidates to fill up vacancies for Tggs
posts of Government Primary School Teachers by way of direct recruitment
through the District Level Competitive Examination and such Notification while
it provides 5 % reservation for persons with disability, specifically bars visually
impaired persons from applying for these posts. The- impugned Notification
blatantly disregards a Division Bench Order of this Hon'ble High Court dated
29.06.2007 in w.P. No. 10396 t 2006, where this Hon'ble court held that
persons with total blindness or with'iow v,ision cesld be appointed,as teachers-1\
by the State'Government and that no attempts of the state Government..[o
justify the exclusion of visually impaired candidates from the recruitment
process could be tenable. Aggrieved by the impugned Notification, the
Petitioner has filed this petition is public interest.
(The Notification dated 30.02.2001 bearing
PraShashi/Nemaka/2007-08 is annexed herein and
ANNEXURE-A).
(1)
AS
No.
is
C3
marked
ARRAY OF PARTIES:
2 The Petitioner Association is the Akhila Karnataka Andha Shikshkarugala
Kshemavribuddhi Sangha, Mysore. The Petitioner Association was set up in
2003 by blind teachers to took into the goncerns and welfare of blind teachers
and the educational rights of visually impaired children in the State of
Karnataka. Some of the main concerns of the Petitioner Association have
been to work for the welfare and educational rights of the visuaily
{\
mndc+peO, to tdte W €mplryts[ ourt]Errn rrr ' rsE :
handicap@ teachers and tot-securc all ernpbynrent and educatirnal nghts
forvisuallyimpairedpersonsandpersonswithlowvision.ThePetitioner.
Association successfully agitated before this court' for the rights of qualified
blind candidates when they were denied the right to apply for the posts of
< primary teachers by the State. The Petitioner Association presently has
around ls:members all over the state' The Petitioner Association is
representedbyitsSecretarywhoisafoundermemberoftheassociationand
ishimselfatrainedschoolteacherwhoisvisuallyimpaired'
3. The Respondents No. 1 and 2 arethe departments of Public lnstruction of the
State Government of Karnataka and which are currently seeking to employ"*!
eligiblepersonsforthepostofprimaryschoolteac.hersintheState.The
impugned Notification,has been issued by the Respondent No' 1'
4.TheRespondentNo.3.-istheDe6iartmentoftheStateGovernmentwhich.*\
deals with all matters pertaining to enforcement of rights of pbrsons qith
disabilitY'
ERIEF FAGTS:
5. lt is submitted that the Respondent No' t has issued a Notification dated
30'07.2007bearingNo.G3(1)PraShashi/Nemaka/2007-0Bcallingfor
applications for 7895 posts of primary school teachers in Karnataka' lt is
submitted that as per this Notification, applications have been called for
Group.C,postsofprimaryschoolteachersforvarioussubjectsand
categories and all the eligibility conditions for selection are specified'
6. The rtrotiri.rtion requires all aspiring p3ndidates who had the required
eligibility qualifications to send in their applications by 07'09'2007' ln addition
totheapplications,theNotificationstatedthatallcandidateswouldbe
I
.t-sehcftut turtte posts luodd t*) made based on fie lefldts d[t'ls
7. The Petitioner submits that the required qualifications specified fot each d '
these posts as per the above Notification dated 30.07.2007 are as follows:
a. ln the case of Primary School Male Teacher/Female
Teacher (General) vacancies, the candidate Should have
passed his/her P.U.C. or T.C.H. or T.C.H' equivalent
examination.
ln the case of Primary School Male Teacher/Female
Teacher (Science) vacancies, the candidate should have
passed P.U.C. with Science and Mathematics as elective
subjects of practice and T.C.H. gr pass in equivalent
examinations.
ln the case of Primary School Male Teacher/Female
Teacher (English lanquage) vacancies, the oandidates'lr
should have passed P.U.C. with English as first or secdpd
language and have obtained 50% of the marks and passed
T.C.H. or any equivalent examinations, or should have
passed P.U.C. and T.C.H. in English medium.
ln the case of Primary School Male Teacher/Female
Teacher (Hindi lanquage) vacancies, the candidates
should have passed P.U.C., and T.C.H. or any equivalent
examinations, and should have passqd S.S.L.C. with Hindi
as first or second language or should have passed P.U'C.
and T.C.H. in Hindi medium.
Apart from these criteria for different subjects, .
the
candidates should also have passed SSLC/PUC/TCH with
the medium of instruction of the teaching posts to which
they chose to apply as their first or second language'
b.
c.
Y.J
d.
e.
Iti,
Iu.,?E,E
rIii
\€,
8' rhe impugned ild:fication provirles tor ilo/oof reservation of posts for persons
wih disabirity. However, in do-ing so, it specificaily bars visua[y handicappedpersons from applying for the notified posts. The impugned Notification listsout the various categories of persons for whom posts are reserved, including
women, rurar candidates, ex-army persons, physicaily handicapped persons
etc' Paragraph 11 at page 12 however states that as per Government orderdated 29-11-2002, bearing No. DpAR s2 sRR gg, perso ns,who have rosttheir vision completety witt not be considered for the appointment ofTeachers'posfs' Based on this Government order purportedly made undersection 32 of the PWD Act, 1995, which is cited in the impugned Notification,
the Respondent No' t has prevented visually impaired candidates fromapplying for these posts.
.* *,
9' The impugned Notification therefore states that blind persons or persons whohave lost their vision completely would not be considered for the appointment
of Primary school reachers' posts.'lt is submitted that the Respondent No. 1
has' based on this Notification, refused all applications for thJlaovertis.qo
posts of primary school teachers frorp qualified blind persons and theirapplications have not been considered. The apprications of visuaily
challenged persons were thus not accepted till the last date for receiving
applications i'e' 07'09'2007. Even until this date the applications from visually
challenged have not been accepted, nor have they been given a hall ticket towrite the common Entrance Test. Due to this, the qualified visualty impaired
candidates will be deprived of a chance to write the entrance test and be
considered as candidates for the notified posts.
10'lt is submitted that while no applications were accepted from visually
challenged persons for these posts of primary schoor teachers, the impugned
Notification dated 30.07-2007 makes reservation. for other categories ofphysically disabled persons tor 5o/o of the posts. This amounts to a denial of
I
tF-+=/
. '- rfE .qrrrEil sumE Elttre re gEral uiilf,y ct arerrgefl
qt'erfied teacfters who have "'-i
rc aborre eligibirity qualifications in the stateof Kamataka- These hained teachers have received a Diproma for primary
school reachers from the Training centre for Teachers of the Visually
, Handicapped (Mysore) under the Nationar rnstitute for the visuaflyHandicapped under the Ministry of sociar Justice & Empowerment,
Government of lndia. This Diploma is equivalent to the T.C.H. certificate. Thesyllabus for these courses is issued by the Rehabilitation council of lndia, astatutory body estabrished under the Ministry of sociar Justice andEmpowerment, Government of rndia, and contains modures designedspecifically for training visually handicapped persons to teach all children,whether they are visuatty handicapped or sighted; thus it is designed forintegrated and inclusive education.
12' lt is submitted that the impugned Notification is in violation of the provisions ofthe PWD Act' The PWD Act was dnacted with an objective to proiide equal
'\employment and education opportunities to all people with disabilities. sect[gn32 of the PWD Act specifically provides that the appropriate governments
shall identify posts in establishments, which can be reserved for persons with
disability. Further, section 33 of the pwD Act specificafly requires theRespondents No' 1 and 2 to reserve vacancies of not less than 3 percent forpersons or class of persons with disability. Section 33 reads as folows:"seciion 33: E"very appropriate Govemment shatt appoint in everyestablishment such percentage of vacancies nol /ess fhpn three per centfor persons or c/ass of persons with disabirity of which one.per cent each
shall be reserued for persons suffering from _
blindness or low vision;
heaing impairment,
locomotor disabitity or cerebrat patsy
in the posfs identified for each disability:
a.
b.
c.
;F' w fnattte ryrogiate gonemnrent may, having rward to ttrc typof work canied on in any dSartmentor esfablrsh ment, by notification
subTbcf to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such
notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this
section."
13. Therefore, under Section 33 of the pWD Act, the Respondent No. 1 and 2
State Government cannot discriminate among the different categories of
disability and is under an obligation to implementing the provisions of the Act,
and make reservations for disabled people in all classes of posts in the public
sector according to their capability. The Respondent No.1 is therefore bound
to have made reservations for visually disabled persons for the posts of
primary school teachers in the subjects such as Engli-sh, Hindi and Kannada
Language and in the social sciences subjects, as such teaching can be
efficiently handled by them as they are qualified and well trained to dq so.
:
14.The impugned Notification is also in comptete violation of the'i*menOnpnt
made to Rule 9(1A) of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment)
Rules, 1977, by means of the Notification issued by the Personnel and
Administrative Reforms Secretariat, Government of Karnataka No. DpAR S0
sRR 2000 on 03.09.2005, which defines a 'person with disability, or a
'physically handilapped candidate'to mean a person suffering from not less
than forty percent (4[o/o) of any disability inctuOing blindness and low vision
among others. 'Blindness' is further defined in these Rules in terms of the
definition given under the PWD Act as including 'total absence of sight'. The
Rules state as follows:
"B.uLek Btindness refers to a condition where a personsuffers iro* uny-''
of the following conditions namely:-
1. total absence of sight; or:
2. visual acuity not exceeding 6/60 or 20/200 @netlen) in the better eye
uv
3- ffi*n d frE ffi of vrsbn sutrendfury m angb d Z0.t-
worse;"
Thus, as seen from these Rules, the Government of Karnataka itself has
recognized that the term 'blindness' includes cases of total absence of sight.
The purpoie of these Amended Rules, as seen from the Amendment to Rule
9(1A), is to provide for reservation of three percent (3%) of the vacancies for
physically handicapped persons in Group 'A' or 'B' and five, percent (5%) of
the vacancies in Group 'c' or 'D' posts. The impugned Notification, by
excluding visually impaired persons from the category of physically
handicapped candidates, is in contravention with these Rules.
(A copy of the Amended Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment)
Rules, 1977, amended by means of the Notification dated 3.9.2005 be.g1i,no
No. DPAR 50 sRR 2000 is annexed herein and marked as ANNEXURE - B)
15.The Petitioner submits that other state governments such as thd Andhra
- Fradesh State Government, havb identified that qualified blind peisons can
be employed to the post of Higher secondary and Middre school Langudge
teachers in the Group C category. ln the State of orissa, the orissa High
Court at Cuttack held in one of its decisions that blind candidates could be
considered for employment as pr:imary School teachers and as Swechhasevi
shiksha sahayaks (sss) or Assistant Primary School reachers in
government schools and directed the state government to consider the
applications of visually impaired candidates for the same. Therefore, the
impugned Notification dated 30.07.2007, which bars .trained and qualified
visually handicapped persons from even applying for the posts of primary
school teachers in subjects that they are able to teach amounts to
discrimination and a violation of Article 14 under the constitution.
16.|t is submifted that Section 32 of the PW? Act specifically provides that the
appropriate govemments shall identify posts in establishments, which can be
tt,7
\,
he list of posts idenffi at periodical intenrats not exeeding three ye-arc and
update the list taking into ionsideration the developments in technology.
Keeping this in mind, the Union of lndia through the Ministry of Social Justice
and Empowerment had as early as 31.05.2001 issued a Notification in
pursuancd of Section 32 of the PWD Act, identifying a list of posts suitable for
persons with disabilities. This exhaustive list was prepared by setting up an
Expert Committee with one Sub-Committee on each category of disability i.e.
Locomotor Disability or Cerebral Palsy, Hearing lmpairment and Blindness or
Low Vision. This Notification identifies the posts of Assistant Teacher, primary
Teacher, Middle School reacher, Language Teacher Middle school to be
suitable for persons who are Blind or with Low Vision.
(A copy of the Notification dated 31.05.2001 issued by the Ministry of Qocial
Justice and Empowerment is annexed herein and is rnarked as ANNEXURE
-c)
17.The above identification of postS of Primary School Teacher and; Assistant-\
Teacher for persons who are blind and with low vision clear"ly shows tfraFihe
Ministry had considered that visually impaired persons can perform the job of
a Primary School Teacher. Therefore there is no reason why the State
Government of Karnataka has not identified the posts of primary School
Teachers for visually impaired persons in the State.
18.The Petitioner submits that the Respondent State Government had come up
with another Notification bearing No. PRA.sHl.NE.21(MA)/2004-05 and dated
20.09.2005 calling for applications from candidates to fill' up 476T posts of
primary school teachers in government schools in the state ald such
Notification while it pr,ovided 5o/o reservation for persons with disability,
specifically excluded visually impaired.qualified persons from applying. The
Petitioner Assoeiation had filed a writ petitign, w.p. No. 16396 I 2006
challenging this Notification. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka was
sall ffier, oE thrtb H[gh corrt trd spedialy heu Htotal blindness or with row visltn muH be appointed in govemment
as primary school teachers and that the State Govemment could not justify
any exclusion of blind persons from the recruitment process. This Hon'ble
Court had'thus directed the State Government to conduct fresh recruitment
for such posts for persosn with disability and to specifically ihclude 1% out
such quota for visually impaired persosn as required under Section 33 of the
PWD Act. Despite this order dated 29.06.2007 passed by this Hon,ble court,
the Respondent No. t has again come up with this impugned Notification
which in terms contains the same exclusion of visually impaired candidates
which was set aside.
(A copy of the Order
Karnataka in W.P. No.
ANNEXURE- p)
dated 29.06.2007 by the
16396 I 2006 is annexed
Hon'ble High Court of
herein and marked as
19.Thereforg, in this present petition;,the Petitioner has sought for the;quashing.:I
of the impugned Notification dated go.ol.2ool and also iought -[9r
appropriate directions seeking reservation of posts of primary School
Teachers for visually impaired persons. tne petitioner has no other
alternative or equally efficacious remedy and is thus filing this petition in
public interest. The Petitioner has not filed any other similar petition before
o.r rn, other court.
GROUNDS:
20-THAT the action of the Respondents in denying trained and qualified visually
challenged. persons the opportunity to apply for the post of primary School
Teachers in the State is in clear violatipnof, the.Or:der.of this Hon'ble High
Court dated 29.06.2007 in W.P. No. 16396 t 2006 and is in violation of
Articles 14, 16 and 21of the Constitudon and a viotation of the provisions of
6": {-
21.THAT the impugned Notifiottn is in unplete violdion d 61e Jgdgrnent of
this Hon',ble court dated 29.06.2007 where it was held that visually impaired
persons can be appointed to the posts of primary school teachers' A
legislative or executive action cannot overrule a judicia! decision without
changing the basis of the judicial decision' ln P. sambamurthy v' state of
Andhra Pradesh,AlR 1987 SC 663, the Hon'ble supreme court of lndia has
held that it is through the power of judicial review conferred on an
independent institutional authority such as the High court that the rule of law
ismaintainedandeveryorganofthestateiskeptwithinthelimitsofthelaw.
TheHon',blesupremecourtfurtherheldthattheruleoflawwouldbe
meaningless if it was open to the state government to defy the law and YetSet
away with it. Any legislative or executive action which impinges upon the
. judicial power of the state is _unconstitutional. Thus, the action of the
' Respondent state Government in issuing the impugned Notific'ation by
overriding the effect of this Ordei passed by this Hon'ble High Codrt in W'P'-1l
No. 163g6 / 2006 has overreached its powers and engaged in a colora-ble
exercise of Power'
22.THAT the aclion of the Respondents in expressly barring visually impaired
persons from applying to the posts of Primary school Teachers and Assistant
Teachers is bad and illegal and in violation of section 32 of the PWD Act and
denies equal opportunities to visually impaired teachers who are trained and
quatified from being considered for the posts in government schools'
23.THAT the Respondent No. 1 lacks competence to exclude visually impaired
persons flom the benefit of reservation under the PWD Act' The policy behind
reservations for persons with disabilities'-has already been laid down by
Parliament thror.rgh the PWD Act, and the State Government is only given
limitedpowerstoimplementtheSamestrictlyinaccordancewithwhatis
--^.,:,{^,.r in rha p\run Act ancl the orderS Of this HOnrble COurt. ln E V'
Ciltrrrliaft y. St# d I-,P- AIR m05 SC t62, a Gonstitutirn-f-
Hon'ble Supreme Court of lnilia has held that the State Govemment
competence to tamper with the Iist of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes and provide for differential percentage of reservation for the different
castes falling within the same category. The Act itself provides for sub-
categorisation of such persons into those with visual, aural and locomotor
disabilities with 17o reservation for each. ln such an event,,the Respondent
No. 1 lacks the competence to exclude one among these specified categories
from any reservation i.e the visually impaired persons and distribute the total
percentage of reservation among the other two categories.
24.THAT the Respondent No. t has acted in a manner that defeats the very
purpose of the special measures prescribed for the beneficial protection of
disabled persons by the PWD Act. The power of exemption given to the State
Government under Section 34 of the PWD Act is limited in scope and not to
be exer:cised without any valid reasons for the same. ln tJnion df tndia v.-:l
Sanjay Kumar Jain, AIR 2004 SC 4139, when interpreting Section a7}i-pt
the PWD Act, which provides that no promotion shall be denied to a person
merely on the ground of his disability, and the proviso to this Section which
empowered the Appropriate Government to exempt any establishment from
the operation of this rule through a Notification if the Appropriate Government
felt so having regard to the type of work carried on in such establishment, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has'held that the Appropriate Government did not
have any unbridled power to exempt any establishmentfrom the provisions of
Section 47. According to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, such exemption can be
done only when the two specified circumstances, namely issuance of
appropriate notification, and prescription of requisite conditions in such
notification, are fulfilled. This decision..-applies because the power of
exemption grantgd under Section 34 only permits the State Government to
deviate from the general principle of reservations for the disabled in certain
po$rer given urder Secfion 34 cannd be wfidly exercfsed- ln lhe present.(-
situation, it is not even the case of the Respondent No. 1 that there is any
such notification for exemption under Section 34, leave alone the fact that
such notification was prompted by sufficient reasons justifying such an
exemption.'
25. THAT by specifically excluding visually handicapped persons who are
completely blind from applying, this Notification is discriminatory under Article
14, 15 and 16 of the lndian Constitution and is a violation of the statutory
rights of disabled persons under the PWD Act, 1995 as well as the Karnataka
Civil Services Recruitment Rules 1977 , as amended by the Notification dated
3.9.2005 bearing No. DPAR 50 SRR 2000. .* .,r
26. THAT the action of the Respondent No. 1 in not accepting the applications of
visually challenged persons, not giving them a hall ticket to write the Common
Entrance Test and thereby denying them the chance to be considered as-l
candidates for the post of primary school teachers solely because they-are
visually challenged is completely arbitrary and unreasonable and such a
classification between people with visual disability has no reasonable nexus
with the objective of selection of qualified and able candidates for the post,
and is therefore illegal and bad in law and is in violation of Article 14 of the
Constitution.
27.THAT the Notification dated 30.07.2007 issued by the.Respondent No. 1 is
arbitrary and irrational as it provides 5% reservation for the posts of primary
school teachers for all physically handicapped persons, but specifically
excludes only blind persons and does not recognize them as persons with
disability and does not allow them to make'applications for the posts. Such
action of the Respondent No. 2 is in violation of Articte 14 of the Constitution
and in complete disregard of Sec. 33 of the PWD Act which recognizes blind
[Ewp w ;Ewp m].rsElEirr,t eir urct5, ll.Ellt tlurari, El, ttEE |-.
-{-eryb!,ment
28.THAT the impugned Notification is specifically barring visually impaired
, persons frbm being employed as Language teachers or Social Sciences
teacher in primary schools is without any legal or rational basis, and denotes
a failure of the State Government to recognize the capabilities of visually
handicapped trained and qualified teachers and should therefore be set aside
as it violates the right to equality and the right to life guaranteed to the
Petitioner under Articte 14 and 21 ofthe Constitution.
29.THAT the impugned Notification is based on irrelevant considerations ap{,is
vitiated by non-application of mind. The Respondent No. t has not given any
reasons whatsoever as to why there has been blanket exclusion imposed in
the case of totally blind candidates while such exclusion does not apply in the
, case.'of,, persons suffering frern' btfrer kinds ,of disability. The Hori'bte High-1:
Court of Karnataka in its Order dated 29.06.2007 in W.P. No. 16396 / 20t)o
had clearly stated that there was no necessity at all for excluding blind people
from applying to the post of primary school teachers as there were various
methods to ensure that blind people could easily fulfitl their professional
responsibility. This being the case, it is difficult to see any special reason for
continuing with this exclusion in the impugned ngtification, more so when no
such reason has been stated by the Respondent No. 1 as promptin,g such
exclusion. The Notification thus is arbitrary and unreasonable and deserves
to be set aside.
30.THAT theimpugned Notification in excluding visually impaired persons from
applying for the post of teachers, is cornpletely in'violation of the Karnataka
Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules 1977 as amended by the
Notification dated 3.9.2005 bearing No. DPAR 50 SRR 2000. These Rules
give a definition of blindness which includes persons with total absence of
slght, and mandates that posts be reserved for all persons with digability,
including persons suffering trJ, .o*plete blindness, for upto s% of the posts
in the Group c and Group D categories and 3o/o of the posts in the Group A
and Group B categories.
31.THAT the action of the Respondents in not opening the posts of primary
School Teachers and Assistant Teachers for visually impaired persons
despite the Central Government having identified such posts for the purpose
of reservations, is bad and illegal and in violation of Section Z2 of the pWD
Act and denies equal opportunities to visually impaired teachers who are
trained and qualified from being considered for the posts in government
schools.
32.THAT the impugned notification violates Article 256 and zsl of the
Constitution of lndia as it an exercise of executive power in contravbntion of
the PWD Act, 1995 which is a Central Act and as has been held: in earlier-l
decisions of this Court as welt as Orissa High Court, is binding on the State
Government, when making provisions for reservations of disabled persons.
33' THAT the Respondent No. t has excluded completely blind persons from
applying for the teaching posts without any reasons for exemption or any
notification exempting them. The PWD Act does not give the Respondent
State Government the power'to tamper with the category of disabled persons
who come under this Act. Section 33 as well as the explanation a (i) of Rule
2(1) (ll) of the General Recruitment Rules of Karnatdka, lgTT include
completely blind persons within the scope of physically handicapped-persons
or Persons with Disability. Once these posts that are in contention here have
been earmarked for reservations, any,one-who comes under the purview of
'persons with disability' cannot be excluded. from the benefits of such
reservation- The impugned Notification in so far as it intends to make such
is YbHes tutftJes 256 and
Hon'ble Court.
257 and thus deserves the interference of thist-
GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF:
34.The Petitioner submits that the impugned notification disregards the order of
this Hon'ble High Court dated 29.06.2007 and if the selection and recruitment
process is compteted pursuant to this Notification, grave ,injustice will be
caused to visually impaired persons in violation of this Order. As applications
from visually challenged persons have not been called for by the Respondent
No. 1 for the posts of Primary School Teachers, it is imperative that the
Competitive Examination to be held on 28.1o.2ooz be stayed until
applications of visually impaired persons are accepted and they are also
given the opportunity to sit for the test.
35.1t is submitted that unless the Competitive Examination to be 'held on
28.10.2007 is stayed, the rights'ot tt'l" visually challenged persohs will be-:l
greatly affected. lf the Test is conducted and selections are made on -fte
basis of the Test, the visually impaired candidates will be left out of such
selection process. Further, third party rights of other candidates will be
created. lt is submitted that such appointment of teachers is notified rarety
and if this chance is missed by visually impaired persons, they would indeed
be prevented from taking the benefit of the resgrvations provided under the
PWD Act. lf all the posts reserved for the visually impaired are filled up, then
this Writ Petition would be rendered infructuous. ln the light of these facts, it is
prayed that the interim relief sought for be granted and the Common Entrance
Test on 28.10.2007 be stayed.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, [n light of the above facts and circumstances, the Petitioner
most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to:
}-
..l'
FA. pass an order directing the Respondents to amend the Notification dated
30.07.2007 bearing No. C3(1)PraShashi/Nemaka/2007-08, produced as
ANNEXURE - A herein, to the extent that it bars visually handicapped
persons who have total absence of sight from applying, to bring it in
conformity with the Persons with Disability (Equal opportunities, Full
participation and Protection of Rights) Act 1995 and The Karnataka Civil
Services Recruitment Rules, 1977.
B. Direct the Respondent No. 1 to accept the applications of qualified visually
challenged persons for the posts of Primary School Teachers and give them
an opportunity to be considered for the posts by permitting them to sit for the
Common Entrance Test.
C. Grant any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the
circumstances of the case in the interests of justice and equity.
INTERIM PRAYER
Pending final disposal of the above writ petition, it is most respectfully prayed that
this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 1 to stay the
Common Entrance Test to be held on 28.10.2007 for selection of candidates
under the impugned Notification dated 30.7.2007, in the interest of justice and
equity.
Place: Bangalore
Date: Counsel for the Petitioner
JAYNA KOTHARI
C.K. NANDAKUMAR
Address for Service
Ashira Law
**a
-e