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