22 August 2024 Education >> Miscellaneous  

The Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) provides a scribe facility for candidates with disabilities during examinations. This assistance is contingent on the scribe's educational qualifications being one step below the minimum qualification required for the post. Recently in the case of Rohit Vishnu Gaikwad vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Social Welfare & Justice Department, Mumbai & Another, a petitioner, a 100% visually impaired individual with a Bachelor's degree, faced rejection of his chosen scribe due to the scribe's qualifications exceeding the required level.

Background:

The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (2016) introduced comprehensive reforms to support persons with disabilities, emphasizing the principle of "Reasonable Accommodation" as defined in Article 2 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). This principle mandates necessary adjustments to ensure equal enjoyment of rights without imposing undue burdens.

The Supreme Court in the landmark case of Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission (2021) emphasized that the provision of a scribe is not confined to individuals with benchmark disabilities but extends to all candidates with disabilities who require such assistance. This ruling led to the development of guidelines for the provision of scribes.

In response, the Central Government issued office memorandums, and the Maharashtra State Government issued guidelines on 5 October 2021, detailing the qualifications for scribes. According to these guidelines, a scribe chosen by the candidate must have educational qualifications one step below the minimum required for the post. If the candidate opts for a scribe provided by MPSC, the scribe must have at least a 10th-grade education.

Case Details:

The petitioner, a resident of Pune, applied for a public post through MPSC, which required a degree as the minimum qualification. The petitioner requested a scribe with a Second-Year B.Sc. qualification, which MPSC rejected, citing that this qualification exceeds the Higher Secondary Certificate (HSC), which is deemed one step below a degree.

MPSC advised the petitioner to either select a scribe with HSC qualifications or accept a scribe from its panel. Dissatisfied, the petitioner sought a court order to permit his chosen scribe.

Legal Arguments and Rulings:

Petitioner’s Argument: The petitioner contended that as long as the scribe’s qualifications are below the petitioner’s degree, it should be deemed acceptable. The petitioner argued that restricting the scribe's qualifications to HSC was inconsistent with the Supreme Court's rulings and the principle of Reasonable Accommodation.

MPSC’s Defense: MPSC maintained that the guidelines are consistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation and adopted a standardized educational framework of 10+2+3 (SSC, HSC, and degree). They argued that this interpretation ensures fairness and maintains examination integrity.

Court’s Analysis: The court acknowledged that while the MPSC’s interpretation of "one step below" as HSC for degree holders aligns with a standardized educational framework, it is not a rigid rule. The court emphasized that the principle of Reasonable Accommodation should be flexible, allowing deviations in special circumstances.

Despite acknowledging the petitioner’s argument, the court found that there were no extraordinary circumstances warranting a deviation from the basic norm. The MPSC had offered to provide a scribe and allowed time for compatibility, fulfilling the reasonable accommodation requirement.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the MPSC’s approach to the scribe’s qualification was reasonable and consistent with established guidelines. The petitioner’s request to use a scribe with qualifications exceeding HSC was denied. However, the court encouraged the petitioner to contact MPSC to ensure a compatible scribe is provided, with adequate preparation time before the examination. The decision underscores the balance between accommodating disabilities and maintaining examination standards, affirming that flexibility in reasonable accommodation must be justified on a case-by-case basis.

  RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, 2016